Abiogenesis: Where is the model?

sourceco...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 3:40:38 AM4/14/13

to

Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

solar penguin

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 4:46:58 AM4/14/13

to

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:40:38 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:

> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial
> environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from
> physical laws.

And is it possible to model something like "falling in love"? If not,
does that mean people can't fall in love because it's not a natural
phenomenon?

> That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952*

If we were discussing about whether oxygen or phlogiston is responsible
for fire, people would quote Lavoisier's experiment from *1774*.

If we were discussing white light as a mixture of colours, people would
quote Sir Isaac Newton's experiment from *1672*.

If we were discussing acceleration and mass, people would quote Galileo's
Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment from *1589*.

Why should the year matter? If the experiment is good, it remains so
even after time has passed.

Rolf Aalberg

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 5:07:54 AM4/14/13

to

May I suggest you are not quite up to date on the subject? The
Miller-Urey was just an experiment, but with a surprising and
interesting result.

The quest for clues about how life might have got started did not end
with Miller-Urey, and much have been learned since then. It is safe to
say that so far nothing has shown that natural causes can be ruled out.

To the contrary, as time goes by, research shows that there are indeed
many reasons to continue the research.

We simply don't know any reason why origins of life could not happen by
natural causes.

But anyway, we know it has been evolving ever since it started. Doesn't
matter if was poofed into existence by the Christian God or other
deitites, or by aliens from outer space.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 5:18:56 AM4/14/13

to

On Apr 14, 9:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
my paper at the following link:
www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
Looking forward to your comments.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 5:23:44 AM4/14/13

to

Sorry I think there is a problem with the link I gave.
Here is a better link (I hope!):
http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=marc%20tessera&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F1422-0067%2F12%2F6%2F3445%2Fpdf&ei=1nNqUbH2EanM0QXyvIGADQ&usg=AFQjCNGOWngZ6-X4DxT8QJeEy20kT1qYlw&sig2=MfBxObu4e-Db1PZINFtkbA&bvm=bv.45175338,d.ZWU

Nick Keighley

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 5:51:43 AM4/14/13

to

On Apr 14, 8:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

so do you think there is a natural or non-natural explanation?

Bill

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 8:04:29 AM4/14/13

to

On Apr 14, 2:40ï¿½pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

You're entirely correct, there is no good model for the origin of
life, only little bits of experiment about possible steps in a bunch
of potential models. Very fragmentary indeed. As far as I know, nobody
in the field claims otherwise. Everybody is pretty much focused on
natural chemical processes occurring on the earth billions of years
ago. If you have a testable model for something else, visiting aliens
or gods, feel free to propose an experiment. Here, as everywhere in
science, "We don't know" is a perfectly fine answer.

jonathan

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 9:55:29 AM4/14/13

to

<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:a2c4d852-6d55-4482...@s4g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 9:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial

>> environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from
>> physical laws.

>> So all we have to do is find this "primordial soup", plug it into a

>> physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being

>> built before our eyes. That's what they thought was going to happen after
>> the Miller-Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually
>> did find. They found that the pieces don't just snap right together. In
>> fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That's why

>> people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the

>> evidence shows that all the Darwin's horses and all Dawkins men can't

>> make a living cell from scratch again.
>> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it,
>> an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY**

>> accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don't even

>> entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no

>> evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It's like
>> living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for
>> computers - at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
> my paper at the following link:
> www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
> Looking forward to your comments.
>

From the paper...

"If we replace the search for the origin of life by the one for
the origin of evolution our priority first is to find a consensus
on the minimal conditions that would allow evolution to emerge
and persist anywhere in the universe."

"Within the paradigm of open, far from equilibrium systems that
should maintain their level of organization, it is possible to only
envisage three conditions that would permit the systems to evolve:

(1) Local conditions that allow the emergence of open
non-equilibrium structural systems, organized on a
macroscopic level, generated by a flow of matter and energy
that is continuously supplied. These open far-from-equilibrium
systems can maintain themselves far-from-equilibrium because
they are able to use the matter and energy supplied by the
favourable local environment;
(2) The systems must be able to self-replicate;
(3) The systems must be capable of acquiring heritable
structure/function properties that are relatively independent
from the local environment,"

I completely agree, as Dickinson wrote long ago, nature
is the result of a universal process of evolution which
is an internal process largely independent of outside
influences and driven by persistent competition of
opposing forces. She beat everyone to the idea of
self organization.

Growth of Man -- like Growth of Nature --
Gravitates within --
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it --
Bit it stir -- alone --

Each -- its difficult Ideal
Must achieve -- Itself --
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life --

Effort -- is the sole condition --
Patience of Itself --
Patience of opposing forces --
And intact Belief --

Looking on -- is the Department
Of its Audience --
But Transaction -- is assisted
By no Countenance --

She repeats herself four times in this short
poem which is very rare for her, she is normally
the definition of concise. And what she says
four times is that evolution is largely
independent of the environment.

"But it stir alone"
"Must achieve itself"
Solitary Prowess"
"Transaction is assisted by no countenance"

And I think she also reduced the needed initial
conditions down to the most abstract possible
when she said "gravitates within".

Short term order, combined with long range disorder
abstractly defines the behavior of water, gravity and
fitness. Close in the forces are strong, order is higher
but quickly diminishes with distance or time.

Inverse-square law behavior is the primary initial
condition for evolution to emerge imo.

Dickinson also knew that the big question isn't really
about creation, but the correct question is how nature
can show us the way to a better future for all.

How Human Nature dotes
On what it can't detect.
The moment that a Plot is plumbed
Prospective is extinct --

Prospective is the friend
Reserved for us to know
When Constancy is clarified
Of Curiosity --

Of subjects that resist
Redoubtablest is this
Where go we --
Go we anywhere
Creation after this?

s

Robert Camp

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 10:39:40 AM4/14/13

to

On Apr 14, 12:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

Well, we can count on them to do as they're programmed, if that's what
you mean. Unfortunately, though, you still have trouble with the
concept of logic,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 10:48:02 AM4/14/13

to

On Apr 14, 3:55ï¿½pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus>

> From the paper...
> "If we replace the search for the origin of life by the one for
> the origin of evolution our priority first is to find a consensus
> on the minimal conditions that would allow evolution to emerge
> and persist anywhere in the universe."
> "Within the paradigm of open, far from equilibrium systems that
> should maintain their level of organization, it is possible to only
> envisage three conditions that would permit the systems to evolve:
> (1) Local conditions that allow the emergence of open

> non-equilibrium ï¿½structural systems, organized on a

> macroscopic level, generated by a flow of matter and energy
> that is continuously supplied. These open far-from-equilibrium

> systems can maintain themselves ï¿½far-from-equilibrium because

> they are able to use the matter and energy supplied by the
> favourable local environment;
> (2) The systems must be able to self-replicate;

> (3) The systems must be capable of acquiring ï¿½heritable

> structure/function properties that are relatively independent
> from the local environment,"
> I completely agree, as Dickinson wrote long ago, nature
> is the result of a universal process of evolution which
> is an internal process largely independent of outside
> influences and driven by persistent competition of
> opposing forces. She beat everyone to the idea of

> self-organization.

Well, thank you for having read my paper.
However, as far as I understand the emergence of Darwinian evolution,
it is not true that Darwinian evolution is independent of the
environment. On the contrary relatively specific local conditions are
required to allow such an emergence, at least within the model I
propose. In particular "lipidic vesicle models require specific
conditions allowing the vesicles to emerge and persist long enough,
including a continuous flow of matter and energy and the possibility
for the waste products to be diluted in an open milieu so that the
system is not hindered by their increasing concentration. On todayï¿½s
Earth there are places where such conditions are fulfilled:
hydrothermal vents, particularly the serpentinite-hosted Lost City
Hydrothermal Field. The energy and the matter are provided by the
vent fluids and the open milieu is the vast ocean. There are good
arguments supporting the idea that many hydrothermal vents already
existed on early Earth, some of which were deep-sea". The fact these
hydrothermal vents were deep-sea is crucial as these would have
offered protective settings from the intensive solar UV radiations and
the frequent massive meteorite impacts suffered by early Earth.
So, no, I cannot follow you when you assert that the emergence and the
persistence of Darwinian evolution are (even relatively) independent
of the environment. I think there were and presently are major
environmental constraints. See the episodes of massive extinctions in
the past history of the Earth.

<snip for focus>

Thrinaxodon

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 6:11:03 PM4/14/13

to

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

eridanus

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 7:47:23 PM4/14/13

to

El domingo, 14 de abril de 2013 08:40:38 UTC+1, sourceco...@yahoo.com escribiï¿½:

> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>
> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
>
> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth.

OK,You had presented a good point here. There is only a caveat with
this sort of arguments. The people that must probably present these
allegations are the people that believe in supernatural events.
But not only they believe in the supernatural, but also in god creator.

Then, applying your reasoning, what is the evidence we have to believe
in supernatural events? What is the evidence we have to believe in a
god creator?

Scientists come out with a theory like evolution, for the wisdom of
such a book as the Bible or the Vedas, were useless to develop a
minimal understanding of nature. As they had not evidence of
supernatural events, they decided that to understand nature, at
least a little bit, we needed to speculate and to reason, even
incurring in the risk of making a wrong theory, like the theory
of the flogisto, the medical theory of the humors, the theory
about visible signs on the face of the born criminals of Lombroso,
or the theory of "The Bell Curve" of Herrnstein, and many others,
like the the theory of "inheritable intelligence" of Sir Cyril Burt.

Then, perhaps we are brain washed. But not as much brainwashed
as people that believe in the gods, Shiva, Parvati, Krisna, Jesus,
or in a god of some sheep herders living in the mountains of Judea
some two thousand years ago.

Eridanus

R. Dean

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 9:49:23 PM4/14/13

to

On 4/14/2013 8:04 AM, Bill wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2:40 pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
>> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> You're entirely correct, there is no good model for the origin of
> life, only little bits of experiment about possible steps in a bunch
> of potential models. Very fragmentary indeed. As far as I know, nobody
> in the field claims otherwise. Everybody is pretty much focused on
> natural chemical processes occurring on the earth billions of years
> ago. If you have a testable model for something else, visiting aliens
> or gods, feel free to propose an experiment. Here, as everywhere in
> science, "We don't know" is a perfectly fine answer.
>

What about Sidney Fox's experiment where he claims to have created
life via natural mehods.

SkyEyes

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 12:22:40 AM4/15/13

to

On Apr 14, 12:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

The first metabolizing, self-replicating molecules - the first
primitive life - did not form cells. Cells came later.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

jillery

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 12:35:01 AM4/15/13

to

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:49:23 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/14/2013 8:04 AM, Bill wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 2:40 pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.

>>> So all we have to do is find this �ｿｽprimordial soup�ｿｽ, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That�ｿｽs what they thought was going to happen after the Miller�ｿｽUrey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don�ｿｽt just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That�ｿｽs why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin�ｿｽs horses and all Dawkins men can�ｿｽt make a living cell from scratch again.
>>> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don�ｿｽt even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It�ｿｽs like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers �ｿｽ at least we can count on them to be logical.

>>
>> You're entirely correct, there is no good model for the origin of
>> life, only little bits of experiment about possible steps in a bunch
>> of potential models. Very fragmentary indeed. As far as I know, nobody
>> in the field claims otherwise. Everybody is pretty much focused on
>> natural chemical processes occurring on the earth billions of years
>> ago. If you have a testable model for something else, visiting aliens
>> or gods, feel free to propose an experiment. Here, as everywhere in
>> science, "We don't know" is a perfectly fine answer.
>>
>What about Sidney Fox's experiment where he claims to have created
>life via natural mehods.

What about it?

eridanus

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 6:44:16 AM4/15/13

to

El lunes, 15 de abril de 2013 05:22:40 UTC+1, SkyEyes escribiï¿½:

It seems the most logical.
Eridanus

Burkhard

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 7:13:30 AM4/15/13

to

On 15 Apr, 02:49, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/14/2013 8:04 AM, Bill wrote:> On Apr 14, 2:40 pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> >> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> > You're entirely correct, there is no good model for the origin of
> > life, only little bits of experiment about possible steps in a bunch
> > of potential models. Very fragmentary indeed. As far as I know, nobody
> > in the field claims otherwise. Everybody is pretty much focused on
> > natural chemical processes occurring on the earth billions of years
> > ago. If you have a testable model for something else, visiting aliens
> > or gods, feel free to propose an experiment. Here, as everywhere in
> > science, "We don't know" is a perfectly fine answer.
>
> What about Sidney Fox's experiment where he claims to have created
> life via natural mehods.

He has shown several steps that will play an important role in any
possible pathway from non-life to life. That for some of the results,
it is debatable (fruitlessly debatable, that is) if the results were
"already" life or not yet shows that he is down a promising path -
entities were the status is debatable is exactly what we should expect
of course from a gradualist picture of the emergence of life.

Whether the pathway he describes is the one that actually too place on
earth is a different issue - here the best he can say is that
conditions under which is experiments took place aren't ruled out by
our best theories of the environment at the time in question.

So in summary, he has reduced the number of unkowns, and significantly
increased the number of known stuff. He also never came against an"in
principle" barrier in his research. Still lots of things remain to be
shown in detail, more if you are interested in the (less interesting,
in my view) question how life emerged historically on earth, less if
your question is simply possible pathwayS from non-life to life.

jonathan

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 8:23:18 PM4/15/13

to

<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:12953d09-e589-4ae4...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 14, 3:55 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>> From the paper...

>> "If we replace the search for the origin of life by the one for
>> the origin of evolution our priority first is to find a consensus
>> on the minimal conditions that would allow evolution to emerge
>> and persist anywhere in the universe."
>> "Within the paradigm of open, far from equilibrium systems that
>> should maintain their level of organization, it is possible to only
>> envisage three conditions that would permit the systems to evolve:
>> (1) Local conditions that allow the emergence of open

>> non-equilibrium structural systems, organized on a

>> macroscopic level, generated by a flow of matter and energy
>> that is continuously supplied. These open far-from-equilibrium

>> systems can maintain themselves far-from-equilibrium because

>> they are able to use the matter and energy supplied by the
>> favourable local environment;
>> (2) The systems must be able to self-replicate;

>> (3) The systems must be capable of acquiring heritable

>> structure/function properties that are relatively independent
>> from the local environment,"
>> I completely agree, as Dickinson wrote long ago, nature
>> is the result of a universal process of evolution which
>> is an internal process largely independent of outside
>> influences and driven by persistent competition of
>> opposing forces. She beat everyone to the idea of
>> self-organization.
>

> Well, thank you for having read my paper.
> However, as far as I understand the emergence of Darwinian evolution,
> it is not true that Darwinian evolution is independent of the
> environment.

Not independent, but the concept of self organization holds
that the process is highly robust to initial conditions. This
can be seen with attractor theory. The highly unconstrained
interaction of autonomous agents tends to produce two
distinct behaviors. Either converging to zero or diverging
to infinity, static or chaotic attractors. And for instance
with a static attractor, the example used is that of spinning
a ball inside a bowl, the final probable state is to come
to rest at the bottom regardless of how fast the ball was
spun or where it started. A wide range of initial conditions
can result in self organization, so it's robust, not senstive
to initial conditions. And once started, the process is mostly
internal and finds it's critical balance internally. The environment
then selects mostly between already established attractors.
This is one of the key differences between Darwin and
Complexity Science.

Just as Emily said

"Earth and sun endorse it, but it stir alone"

>On the contrary relatively specific local conditions are
> required to allow such an emergence, at least within the model I
> propose. In particular "lipidic vesicle models require specific
> conditions allowing the vesicles to emerge and persist long enough,
> including a continuous flow of matter and energy

I've been watching the Mars rover missions pretty closely, and
a lot of research has been done since the rovers landed.
A common theme of much of the new research on life elsewhere
is to find the needed energy source or persistent gradient that
can fuel such a process, just as you say. A huge list of recent
astrobiology abstracts are below, you might be surprised at
how excited and flooded with research astrobiology has
become since the rovers landed. It's gone from psuedo-science
to very mainstream in the last few years

NASA Astrobiology Conference 2012
http://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/

> and the possibility
> for the waste products to be diluted in an open milieu

Right, flowing water, preferably warm.

> so that the
> system is not hindered by their increasing concentration. On today's

> Earth there are places where such conditions are fulfilled:
> hydrothermal vents, particularly the serpentinite-hosted Lost City
> Hydrothermal Field

You should see Mars if you're into hydrothermal systems,
the Opportunity rov at Meridiani shows a huge area exposed
by erosion that obviously was a horizon to horizon shallow
underground hydrothermal spring system. Notice the razor
flat horizon showing water or ice formed the landscape.
And the fact there's hardly a rock to be found from horizon
to horizon. This field was underwater, probably just underground
in a massive thermal spring as the entire field is covered with
hematite, which is iron that formed in hot water.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/069/tn/1P134310798ESF08AYP2583L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

On as much as half of Mars, just a few meters deep and the soil is as
much as 50% water ice. And as you go deeper the temperatures and
protection from radiation steadily increases. It seems clear much
of Mars had, and even has today, a huge potential biosphere
just a few meters down.

The reason they went to Meridiani was the strong hematite
signature spanning Meridiani, and they found almost all the hematite
was found in countless billions of hematite/silicone spheres
covering the field from horizon to horizon. None in the soil.
NASA says the spheres formed in hot water, probably just
underground.

These generally come in two sizes.
Field of view roughly postage stamp size.

Small
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML

Large
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML

Wide angle view

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/tn/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/1861/1P293402499ESFA000P2562L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/505/tn/1P173013913EFF55VWP2559L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/183/tn/1P144428432EFF3370P2540L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/533/tn/1P175500101EFF57BTP2568L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

And here's some recent pics from the new Mars Science Lab Rover.
It's sitting in the middle of what was a shallow pond or mudflat.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=181&camera=MAHLI

The energy and the matter are provided by the
> vent fluids and the open milieu is the vast ocean. There are good
> arguments supporting the idea that many hydrothermal vents already
> existed on early Earth, some of which were deep-sea". The fact these
> hydrothermal vents were deep-sea is crucial as these would have
> offered protective settings from the intensive solar UV radiations and
> the frequent massive meteorite impacts suffered by early Earth.
> So, no, I cannot follow you when you assert that the emergence and the
> persistence of Darwinian evolution are (even relatively) independent
> of the environment. I think there were and presently are major
> environmental constraints.

Of course the environment matters, but what Complexity Science
has done is come up with a totally abstract version of an
evolutionary system, and that allows one to see the basic process
at work in many other contexts, from physical to social systems.
Think of the ultimate needed condition as a large interstellar
cloud of gas and dust, disturbed in some way so gravity takes over
and spontaneous cylic order emerges, stars and solar systems
and so on form. Which then provide the initial conditions for the next
hierarchy of evolved order, and so on and so on up the ladder.
Self organized systems produce the needed initial conditions.

In abstract form, the ideal initial condition is the /random disturbance
to a random system/. A condition with the widest ranges of possibility.

>See the episodes of massive extinctions in
> the past history of the Earth.

No rain no trees, but no trees no rain.
Same for extinction events, without them
life couldn't get very far up the ladder.
Stress is the other necessary initial condition
for self organization, being pushed to the edge
of chaos, or internal tipping point.

Extinction events are a sign of evolution just
as earthquakes are a sign of plate tectonics.
And both follow the same power-law form
in their distribution of events.

s

>
> <snip for focus>
>

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:19:40 AM4/16/13

to

On Apr 16, 2:23�am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message

<snip for focus>

> > Well, thank you for having read my paper.
> > However, as far as I understand the emergence of Darwinian evolution,
> > it is not true that Darwinian evolution is independent of the
> > environment.
> Not independent, but the concept of self organization holds
> that the process is highly robust to initial conditions. This
> can be seen with attractor theory. The highly unconstrained
> interaction of autonomous agents tends to produce two
> distinct behaviors. Either converging to zero or diverging
> to infinity, static or chaotic attractors. And for instance
> with a static attractor, the example used is that of spinning
> a ball inside a bowl, the final probable state is to come
> to rest at the bottom regardless of how fast the ball was
> spun or where it started. A wide range of initial conditions
> can result in self organization, so it's robust, not senstive
> to initial conditions. And once started, the process is mostly
> internal and finds it's critical balance internally. The environment
> then selects mostly between already established attractors.
> This is one of the key differences between Darwin and
> Complexity Science.

A self-organization as a dissipative system needs the continual input
of energy and matter, it is a meta-stable pattern and breaks down
without this input. For example a hurricane breaks down when it goes
onto land as there is no more hot water to fuel it. The same for any
of the so-called biological systems, i.e. what I call the products of
Darwinian evolution.

> >On the contrary relatively specific local conditions are
> > required to allow such an emergence, at least within the model I
> > propose. In particular "lipidic vesicle models require specific
> > conditions allowing the vesicles to emerge and persist long enough,
> > including a continuous flow of matter and energy
> I've been watching the Mars rover missions pretty closely, and
> a lot of research has been done since the rovers landed.
> A common theme of much of the new research on life elsewhere
> is to find the needed energy source or persistent gradient that
> can fuel such a process, just as you say. A huge list of recent
> astrobiology abstracts are below, you might be surprised at
> how excited and flooded with research astrobiology has
> become since the rovers landed. It's gone from psuedo-science
> to very mainstream in the last few years
> NASA Astrobiology Conference 2012http://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/

To me this is the major issue with Mars. It is unlikely that Mars has
had a system of tectonic plates for enough time at the beginninig of
its history to allow the emergence of Darwinain evolution.

> > and the possibility
> > for the waste products to be diluted in an open milieu
> Right, flowing water, preferably warm.

Why warm? To me the temperature of the sea was not a crucial parameter
except that the sea water should have been liquid of course.

> > so that the
> > system is not hindered by their increasing concentration. On today's
> > Earth there are places where such conditions are fulfilled:
> > hydrothermal vents, particularly the serpentinite-hosted Lost City
> > Hydrothermal Field
> You should see Mars if you're into hydrothermal systems,
> the Opportunity rov at Meridiani shows a huge area exposed
> by erosion that obviously was a horizon to horizon shallow
> underground hydrothermal spring system. Notice the razor
> flat horizon showing water or ice formed the landscape.
> And the fact there's hardly a rock to be found from horizon
> to horizon. This field was underwater, probably just underground
> in a massive thermal spring as the entire field is covered with
> hematite, which is iron that formed in hot water.

> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/069/tn/1P134310798ESF08AYP2583L5M1_L...

Well, the presence of iron is perhaps a proof of the past presence of
black smokers (very rich in metal sulfides which can become massive
sulfide ore deposits).
However, presently there is no proof of the past presence on Mars of
white smokers (comparable to the serpentinite-hosted Lost City
Hydrothermal Fields).

> On as much as half of Mars, just a few meters deep and the soil is as
> much as �50% water ice. And as you go deeper the temperatures and
> protection from radiation steadily increases. It seems clear much
> of Mars had, and even has today, a huge potential biosphere
> just a few meters down.

> > The energy and the matter are provided by the
> > vent fluids and the open milieu is the vast ocean. There are good
> > arguments supporting the idea that many hydrothermal vents already
> > existed on early Earth, some of which were deep-sea". The fact these
> > hydrothermal vents were deep-sea is crucial as these would have
> > offered protective settings from the intensive solar UV radiations and
> > the frequent massive meteorite impacts suffered by early Earth.
> > So, no, I cannot follow you when you assert that the emergence and the
> > persistence of Darwinian evolution are (even relatively) independent
> > of the environment. I think there were and presently are major
> > environmental constraints.
> Of course the environment matters, but what Complexity Science
> has done is come up with a totally abstract version of an
> evolutionary system, and that allows one to see the basic process
> at work in many other contexts, from physical to social systems.
> Think of the ultimate needed condition as a large interstellar
> cloud of gas and dust, disturbed in some way so gravity takes over
> and spontaneous cylic order emerges, stars and solar systems
> and so on form. Which then provide the initial conditions for the next
> hierarchy of evolved order, and so on and so on up the ladder.
> Self organized systems produce the needed initial conditions.

In case of self-organizations fed by a white smoker (or any
hydrothermal source) how can you assert that such self-organizations
produce the needed initial conditions?

> In abstract form, the ideal initial condition is the /random disturbance
> to a random system/. A condition with the widest ranges of possibility.

Here you are a poet (like Emily) as you indulge in wishful thinking.

> >See the episodes of massive extinctions in
> > the past history of the Earth.
> No rain no trees, but no trees no rain.
> Same for extinction events, without them
> life couldn't get very far up the ladder.
> Stress is the other necessary initial condition
> for self organization, being pushed to the edge
> of chaos, or internal tipping point.
> Extinction events are a sign of evolution just
> as earthquakes are a sign of plate tectonics.
> And both follow the same power-law form
> in their distribution of events.

I find you very optimistic: I think that any of these massive
extinctions could have been the last one.
By the way, "during its life in the main sequence, the Sun is becoming
more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years) and its surface
temperature is slowly rising"."The increase in solar temperatures is
such that in about another billion years the surface of the Earth will
probably become too hot for liquid water to exist" (from Wikipedia
"Sun"), ending all the terrestrial products of Darwinian evolution ...
if any has survived at that time.

Kermit

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 10:40:53 AM4/16/13

to

On 15 Apr, 17:23, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message

> NASA Astrobiology Conference 2012http://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/

>
> > and the possibility
> > for the waste products to be diluted in an open milieu
>
> Right, flowing water, preferably warm.
>
> > so that the
> > system is not hindered by their increasing concentration. On today's
> > Earth there are places where such conditions are fulfilled:
> > hydrothermal vents, particularly the serpentinite-hosted Lost City
> > Hydrothermal Field
>
> You should see Mars if you're into hydrothermal systems,
> the Opportunity rov at Meridiani shows a huge area exposed
> by erosion that obviously was a horizon to horizon shallow
> underground hydrothermal spring system. Notice the razor
> flat horizon showing water or ice formed the landscape.
> And the fact there's hardly a rock to be found from horizon
> to horizon. This field was underwater, probably just underground
> in a massive thermal spring as the entire field is covered with
> hematite, which is iron that formed in hot water.
>

> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/069/tn/1P134310798ESF08AYP2583L5M1_L...

>
> On as much as half of Mars, just a few meters deep and the soil is as
> much as �50% water ice. And as you go deeper the temperatures and
> protection from radiation steadily increases. It seems clear much
> of Mars had, and even has today, a huge potential biosphere
> just a few meters down.
>
> The reason they went to Meridiani was the strong hematite
> signature spanning Meridiani, and they found almost all the hematite
> was found in countless billions of hematite/silicone spheres
> covering the field from horizon to horizon. None in the soil.
> NASA says the spheres formed in hot water, probably just
> underground.
>
> These generally come in two sizes.
> Field of view roughly postage stamp size.
>

> Smallhttp://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P295...http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06AS...
>
> Largehttp://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370...http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544...
>
> Wide angle view
>
> http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/tn/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L...http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L...http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/1861/1P293402499ESFA000P2562L5M1_L4L...http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/505/tn/1P173013913EFF55VWP2559L5M1_L...http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5...http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/183/tn/1P144428432EFF3370P2540L5M1_L...http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/533/tn/1P175500101EFF57BTP2568L5M1_L...

>
> And here's some recent pics from the new Mars Science Lab Rover.

> It's sitting in the middle of what was a shallow pond or mudflat.http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=181&camera=MAHLI

I *like Emily Dickinson, but I don't go to her for education in
evolutionary biology.

Curiously, I don't go to Carl Sandburg for advice on exercise, either.

kermit

Kermit

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 11:11:15 AM4/16/13

to

On 14 Apr, 00:40, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.

Yes, once we learn enough about the physical laws (we may know enough
already) and enough about initial conditions on Earth during life's
development (we definitely do not know enough about this yet).

How else could natural phenomena be modeled except by using physical
laws? A "law" is simply a description of universally *observed
behavior. When X, then Y, usually but not always expressed as a
mathematical formula.

> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*.

No, that was a preliminary investigation but they knew that their
understanding of early earth were limited. Their experiments still
informed us, but nobody has ever claimed that it was the ultimate
experiment to tell us how life happened. Well, nobody but creationists
and a few breathless journalists, perhaps.

> But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.

Yes, if you do the same things they did udner the same conditions you
would get the same results. So for those processes of course they are
referenced.

> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth.

Are you saying that life has always been here? Please get your own
damn claims straight. You are claiming that life appeared at some
point, but that the process was supernatural, and you know Who did it.
You have no evidence, and badly misunderstand or misrepresent the
scientific process, but you still know better, because something
something.

> ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it.

I don't know about the science channel. I do know that the scientific
community is still researching this, and they assume that the universe
is comprehensible to a degree, and to that degree ti is comprehensible
through careful observations and testing. Nobody is claiming the
Miller-Urey experiment was the alpha and omega of abiogenesis science.
From Wikipedia:

"The Millerï¿½Urey experiment[1] (or Ureyï¿½Miller experiment)[2] was an
experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be
present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical
origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander
Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the
primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic
compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic
experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] by
Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and
published the following year.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials
preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there
were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's
original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller
originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.
[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere
might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Millerï¿½
Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic
eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon
dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in
addition to the ones in the original Millerï¿½Urey experiment have
produced more diverse molecules.[8]"

kermit
>ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 3:57:00 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 14, 3:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.

> So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes.
> That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*.

>But that is not what they actually did find.

> They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together.

> In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together.

In the right way, that is. Fox got amino acids to snap together all
right, but the outcome was not a polypeptide and certainly not a
useful enzyme, let alone an evolutionary precursor to "life as we know
it.".

> That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952*
> even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses
>and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.

Nice little variation on the old nursery rhyme.

> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation,
> has no evidence to support it,

I see you are wearing "protective talk.origins evolutionist
camouflage" by writing "no evidence" instead of "only very weak
evidnence." This use of "no evidence" is the product of extensive
intellectual inbreeding here over the last two decades.

>an abundance of counter evidence to refute it

Not sure what you are referring to here.

> yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth.

Yes, I sometimes tease them about it by characterizing this attitude
as:

Mother Earth did it, this I know,
For Ockham's Razor tells me so.

>Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain

> the possibility that it could be untrue even though
> there is no evidence at all to support it.
> Yet they call it science. LOL.

I snipped you laying this on just a little too thickly.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:02:15 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 14, 5:23 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:18 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:

>
> > On Apr 14, 9:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.

> > > So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
> > > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.

> > Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
> > my paper at the following link:www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
> > Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Sorry I think there is a problem with the link I gave.

> Here is a better link (I hope!):http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=marc%20tessera&source=web&cd=1&...

As I've been telling you, Marc, this is fine as far as it goes, but
you still need to find a plausible model of how to get from it to

"life as we know it."

I'll say you have succeeded when you get as far as a free-living
prokaryote. But do you even know how to get from it to "RNA world"?
If so, you are doing a great deal better than Paul Gans did with his
incredibly vague October POTM, and also better than the researchers he
failed to name, tops among them being Shapiro.

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:08:15 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 14, 5:51 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Apr 14, 8:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.

> > So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
> > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> so do you think there is a natural or non-natural explanation?

*I* think there is a natural one. Given enough universes, an
efficient replicator will come along by sheer blind chance on some
planet in one of them. And then Darwinian evolution can take it from
there, just as we all believe it has taken it from the first
prokaryote.

But that only accounts for *some* intelligent species arising in our
universe. "We are here" just argues for that species being in our
galaxy, but not for it being *our* species, as long as directed
panspermia is not ruled out.

Today, I've finally done what some people have been after me to do for
some time. I've started a thread in which I analyze the probability
of our arising via directed panspermia:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d42336f49de36a72#

I'd love for you (and Marc Tessera too) to join me there.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:10:31 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 14, 8:04 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2:40 pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> > So all we have to do is find this primordial soup , plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin s horses and all Dawkins men can t make a living cell from scratch again.
> > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> You're entirely correct, there is no good model for the origin of
> life, only little bits of experiment about possible steps in a bunch
> of potential models. Very fragmentary indeed. As far as I know, nobody
> in the field claims otherwise. Everybody is pretty much focused on
> natural chemical processes occurring on the earth billions of years
> ago. If you have a testable model for something else, visiting aliens
> or gods, feel free to propose an experiment. Here, as everywhere in
> science, "We don't know" is a perfectly fine answer.

Yes, but I like to try to go further than that. You, too, are invited
to join my new thread on directed panspermia, or to join the one I
started last month:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/54913f700c6588ce/bf6e20ddfd9fa137

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:21:18 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 14, 10:39 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> > So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
> > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> Well, we can count on them to do as they're programmed, if that's what
> you mean. Unfortunately, though, you still have trouble with the
> concept of logic,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Ah, Camp, you are the quintessential polemicist. But I too can talk
about "fallacies". Here is the one lurking at the back of most
arguments for abiogenesis in the time frame of the age of the earth:

The Exaptor of the Gaps Gambit:

"some unknown gene, performing
unknown functions, was exapted
in ways we cannot conjecture, to
produce the gene in which you are interested."

And if one persists in asking where that unknown gene came from, the
answer effectively becomes "turtles all the way down to something only
slightly more complicated than what Urey and Miller got in 1952"

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:28:52 PM4/16/13

to

On Apr 14, 6:11 pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:40:38 AM UTC-4, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>

> > So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
>
> > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.
>
> http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Li...

That's not a model, it's just an outline of the steps life's
precursors presumably went through.

Back around the time of Urey-Miller or somewhat before, LeComte du
Nuoy pointed out the staggering odds against a modern enzyme appearing
by chance. Others have pointed out some fallacies in his reasoning,
but no model has yet emerged for lowering the odds enough to make the
production of a full fledged prokaryote plausible in the whole age of
the universe.

Can you improve on the Exaptor of the Gaps Gambit that I told Camp
about? Harshman swears by it, but has never been able to flesh it
out. I originally described it to him at much greater length and much
greater specificity:

"A random protein A, catalyzing reactions z1, ...zn [don't ask me
what n is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess, was exapted via a
string of mutations, while still serving some of these functions
[don't ask me which ones it was still serving at the end of the
string],

"exapted, I say, to give us a protein B, catalyzing reactions y1, ...
y_m [don't ask me what m is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess,
which in turn was exapted, via a string of mutations...
...
...
"...which in turn was exapted to give us a protein Z, catalyzing the
replacement of U with C that corrects any ribozyme transcribing DNA
into mRNA but erroneously putting a U where C belongs."

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:30:59 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 14, 9:49 pm, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/14/2013 8:04 AM, Bill wrote:> On Apr 14, 2:40 pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.

> >> So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> > You're entirely correct, there is no good model for the origin of
> > life, only little bits of experiment about possible steps in a bunch
> > of potential models. Very fragmentary indeed. As far as I know, nobody
> > in the field claims otherwise. Everybody is pretty much focused on
> > natural chemical processes occurring on the earth billions of years
> > ago. If you have a testable model for something else, visiting aliens
> > or gods, feel free to propose an experiment. Here, as everywhere in
> > science, "We don't know" is a perfectly fine answer.
>
> What about Sidney Fox's experiment where he claims to have created
> life via natural mehods.

That wasn't life, It had no genome and did not metabolize. Those were
glorified crystals of "proteinoids" [not even proteins] that were an
evolutionary dead end.

Peter Nyikos

Robert Camp

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:33:31 PM4/16/13

to

On Apr 16, 1:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:39 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 12:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> > > So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
> > > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.
>
> > Well, we can count on them to do as they're programmed, if that's what
> > you mean. Unfortunately, though, you still have trouble with the
> > concept of logic,
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

<snip whining>

Try again. This time, maybe with something that isn't a wearisome
rehash of arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:33:33 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 15, 12:22 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.

> > So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
> > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> The first metabolizing, self-replicating molecules - the first
> primitive life - did not form cells. Cells came later.

And how did those first cells come to be? Ay, there's the rub. Marc
Tessera has a nice example of "the first primitive life"-- did you
benefit from his essay? -- but I reminded him how I kept asking
whether he had a model from getting from that to the first cell, and
he said he did not.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:38:38 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 16, 11:11 am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
> Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere

> might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–
> Urey experiment.

Yes, but the differences aren't all in favor of abiogenesis.

> There is abundant evidence of major volcanic
> eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon
> dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur
> dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in

> addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have

> produced more diverse molecules.[8]"

"in addition to" is unwarranted by the "abundant evidence," which
suggests that two of the main ingredients of Urey-Miller, ammonia and
methane, were in short supply.

More importantly, those "more diverse molecules" are not significantly
closer to the first prokaryote than the ones Miller produced.

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 5:14:46 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 16, 4:33 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 1:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 10:39 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 14, 12:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> > > > So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
> > > > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.

I was more merciful to you than you were to me, Camp. I didn't snip
the following "whining" by you, nor did I polemically label it
"whining."

> > > Unfortunately, though, you still have trouble with the
> > > concept of logic,

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
>
> <snip whining>

What you are doing, Camp, is showing how infected you have become with
the severe intellectual inbreeding that has produced monstrosities
like the uses of the word "whining" in politically charged newsgroups
like this one.

> Try again.

I see no need to until you make good on your bluff:

> This time, maybe with something that isn't a wearisome
> rehash of arguments from ignorance and incredulity

I'm calling your bluff: IMPROVE on the Exaptor of the Gaps gambit, or
retract your insinuation about the observations you snipped.

They were no more "arguments from ignorance and incredulity" than the
contents of the Wiki article you linked above. Here are those
observations again:

Here is [what is] lurking at the back of most

jillery

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 5:34:01 PM4/16/13

to

You present this as if it's a valid criticism of homegrown
abiogenesis. Why doesn't AOTA apply to the abiogenesis of your
initial DP planet?

Robert Camp

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 6:00:50 PM4/16/13

to

On Apr 16, 2:14ï¿½pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:33ï¿½pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 1:21ï¿½pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 14, 10:39ï¿½am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 14, 12:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> > > > > So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.

> > > > > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.
>
> I was more merciful to you than you were to me, Camp. ï¿½I didn't snip

> the following "whining" by you, nor did I polemically label it
> "whining."

There's an easy way to keep me from excising what you write. Write
something of substance.

> > > > Unfortunately, though, you still have trouble with the
> > > > concept of logic,
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
>
> > <snip whining>
>
> What you are doing, Camp, is showing how infected you have become with
> the severe intellectual inbreeding that has produced monstrosities
> like the uses of the word "whining" in politically charged newsgroups
> like this one.

Seriously, man, consider professional help.

<snip rehash of the rehash>

Kalkidas

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 6:13:00 PM4/16/13

to

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

>On Apr 14, 9:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.

>> So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
>> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.
>
>Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
>my paper at the following link:
>www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
>Looking forward to your comments.

I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
concept".

If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter? It seems to be
equally "impossible to define", at least without total dependence on
other metaphysical concepts like "measurement", "time", "space" etc..

So where is the physical if the metaphysical is excluded from science?

jonathan

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 9:15:21 PM4/16/13

to

<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:c98ad3c3-ace8-44d4...@a3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 16, 2:23 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message

>

> A self-organization as a dissipative system needs the continual input
> of energy and matter, it is a meta-stable pattern and breaks down
> without this input. For example a hurricane breaks down when it goes
> onto land as there is no more hot water to fuel it. The same for any
> of the so-called biological systems, i.e. what I call the products of
> Darwinian evolution.
>

Right, but a nice Complexity Page at Cambridge Zoology Dept
explained the inevitability of evolution in this way. They compared
fitness peaks to gravity wells. They share two key properties.

One, the larger the peak, the larger the basin of attraction.
And second, peaks tend to clump together.

Together those tendencies translate to any random path
through such a possibility space is more likely to fall into
a region of higher fitness/gravity than a lower one.
Random events sums over, so to speak, to spontaneous
cyclic order and relentless hill-climbing.

A totally random system, or zero order, when disturbed
must create a non-zero level of order. Order for free!

>> >On the contrary relatively specific local conditions are
>> > required to allow such an emergence, at least within the model I
>> > propose. In particular "lipidic vesicle models require specific
>> > conditions allowing the vesicles to emerge and persist long enough,
>> > including a continuous flow of matter and energy
>> I've been watching the Mars rover missions pretty closely, and
>> a lot of research has been done since the rovers landed.
>> A common theme of much of the new research on life elsewhere
>> is to find the needed energy source or persistent gradient that
>> can fuel such a process, just as you say. A huge list of recent
>> astrobiology abstracts are below, you might be surprised at
>> how excited and flooded with research astrobiology has
>> become since the rovers landed. It's gone from psuedo-science
>> to very mainstream in the last few years
>> NASA Astrobiology Conference 2012http://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/
>
> To me this is the major issue with Mars. It is unlikely that Mars has
> had a system of tectonic plates for enough time at the beginninig of
> its history to allow the emergence of Darwinain evolution.

Mars at best probably never got beyond microbes. But
plate tectonics isn't the only potential energy source.
Mars has ice-ages and plenty of underground water ice.
There should be a region underground where water exists
even today and the conditions for life exist now.

Did you look at this picture? The razor flat horizon and lack
of rocks mean water or ice was covering this field not that
long ago. Certainly not geologic time ago, but perhaps on
the scale of ice ages. The entire field from horizon to horizon
is coated with hematite, an iron that forms only in hot water.
An ancient site would be a rugged lag deposit full of boulders
and hills. This is a dried up ocean floor.
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/069/tn/1P134310798ESF08AYP2583L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

>
>> > and the possibility
>> > for the waste products to be diluted in an open milieu
>> Right, flowing water, preferably warm.
>
> Why warm? To me the temperature of the sea was not a crucial parameter
> except that the sea water should have been liquid of course.

On Mars the only surface water would have to come from
underground thermal springs, which could fill valleys and
craters from time to time as ice-ages wax and wane, and
be protected by an ice cap.

Look where the new MSL rover is now. That dried up mud
its sitting on isn't fossilized mud, it's the original mud from
a dried up pond. It can't be geologic time scales old, but must be
much younger. They're finding clay all over the place sitting
right out in the open.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=235&camera=FHAZ_

Close up
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0133MR0811001000E1_DXXX&s=133

> I find you very optimistic: I think that any of these massive
> extinctions could have been the last one.

But they weren't, and if anything life thrived off of them.
Would dinosaurs have gone to the moon if not for that
asteroid? Or did that stressful event just give life an
opportunity to start a new path with far more potential?

The large evolutionary steps happen when a system is near
it's breaking point.

> By the way, "during its life in the main sequence, the Sun is becoming
> more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years) and its surface
> temperature is slowly rising"."The increase in solar temperatures is
> such that in about another billion years the surface of the Earth will
> probably become too hot for liquid water to exist" (from Wikipedia
> "Sun"), ending all the terrestrial products of Darwinian evolution ...
> if any has survived at that time.

But by then maybe Mars will be just right. Life will adapt
and maintain the environment even in the face of changes
in solar radiation. You'd have to almost split the planet
in half to kill off all life.

>

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 11:16:58 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 16, 5:34ï¿½pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:28:52 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
>
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >On Apr 14, 6:11ï¿½pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:40:38 AM UTC-4, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >> > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>
> >> > So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
>

> >> > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> >>http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Li...
>
> >That's not a model, it's just an outline of the steps life's
> >precursors presumably went through.
>
> >Back around the time of Urey-Miller or somewhat before, LeComte du
> >Nuoy pointed out the staggering odds against a modern enzyme appearing

> >by chance. ï¿½Others have pointed out some fallacies in his reasoning,

> >but no model has yet emerged for lowering the odds enough to make the
> >production of a full fledged prokaryote plausible in the whole age of
> >the universe.
>
> >Can you improve on the Exaptor of the Gaps Gambit that I told Camp

> >about? ï¿½Harshman swears by it, but has never been able to flesh it
> >out. ï¿½I originally described it to him at much greater length and much
> >greater specificity:
>
> >"A random protein A, catalyzing reactions ï¿½z1, ...zn [don't ask me

> >what n is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess, was exapted via a
> >string of mutations, while still serving some of these functions
> >[don't ask me which ones it was still serving at the end of the
> >string],
>
> >"exapted, I say, to give us a protein B, catalyzing reactions y1, ...
> >y_m [don't ask me what m is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess,
> >which in turn was exapted, via a string of mutations...
> >...
> >...
> >"...which in turn was exapted to give us a protein Z, catalyzing the
> >replacement of U with C that corrects any ribozyme transcribing DNA
> >into mRNA but erroneously putting a U where C belongs."
>
> You present this as if it's a valid criticism of homegrown
> abiogenesis.

No, only a fleshing-out of the best that I've seen from any of its
proponents.

A less sophisticated thing I've read on another thread from one of
its proponents the other day went about like this: "Production of life
is probably easy because look, we are here!"

I can look up the exact quote -- but perhaps you know who and what I
am talking about, yes?

> Why doesn't AOTA apply to the abiogenesis of your
> initial DP planet?

IMHO, it beat the superastronomical odds against the production of all
the enzymes that make for life as we know it. Sort of like the stock
example of all the air in the room collecting in one tiny corner if
enough eons pass, simply because of the principle that "given enough
time, anything that can happen, will happen".

In this case, though, it is more like, "given enough universes like
this one, anything that can happen will take place at some point in
one of them."

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 11:24:36 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 16, 6:00�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:14 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:33 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 1:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 14, 10:39 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 14, 12:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> > > > > > So all we have to do is find this primordial soup , plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin s horses and all Dawkins men can t make a living cell from scratch again.
> > > > > > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers at least we can count on them to be logical.
>
> > I was more merciful to you than you were to me, Camp. I didn't snip

> > the following "whining" by you, nor did I polemically label it
> > "whining."
>
> There's an easy way to keep me from excising what you write. Write
> something of substance.

Been there, done that in replies to others right here on this thread.
When will you do the same?

> > > > > Unfortunately, though, you still have trouble with the
> > > > > concept of logic,
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The above was an *ad hominem* fallacy, a substitute for making
substantive arguments against the objections that "sourcecodewhiz"
brought up en route to his overextended conclusions.

> > > <snip whining>
>
> > What you are doing, Camp, is showing how infected you have become with
> > the severe intellectual inbreeding that has produced monstrosities
> > like the uses of the word "whining" in politically charged newsgroups
> > like this one.
>
> Seriously, man, consider professional help.

There's another *ad hominem*. Would you say George Orwell's analysis
of Newspeak in _Nineteen Eighty Four_ was cause for him to seek
professional help?

Peter Nyikos

pnyikos

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 11:28:44 PM4/16/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

On Apr 16, 6:13ï¿½pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:

>
> >On Apr 14, 9:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> >> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.

> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> >Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
> >my paper at the following link:
> >www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
> >Looking forward to your comments.
>
> I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
> define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
> concept".

One problem is that there is a big gray area between what everyone
would acknowledge to be "life" and what everyone would acknowledge to
be "non-life". Where do viruses or viroids fit in, for instance?

> If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter?

Whoa! Don't you think living things are made of matter?

Peter Nyikos

jillery

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:52:46 AM4/17/13

to

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:16:58 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 5:34�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:28:52 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> >On Apr 14, 6:11�pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:40:38 AM UTC-4, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> >> > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. �Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>>
>> >> > So all we have to do is find this �primordial soup�, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. � That�s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller�Urey experiment in *1952*. � � But that is not what they actually did find. �They found that the pieces don�t just snap right together. �In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. � That�s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin�s horses and all Dawkins men can�t make a living cell from scratch again.
>>
>> >> > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. �Check the science channel, they don�t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. � Yet they call it science. �LOL. � It�s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. � Thank logic for computers � at least we can count on them to be logical.

>>
>> >>http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Li...
>>
>> >That's not a model, it's just an outline of the steps life's
>> >precursors presumably went through.
>>
>> >Back around the time of Urey-Miller or somewhat before, LeComte du
>> >Nuoy pointed out the staggering odds against a modern enzyme appearing

>> >by chance. �Others have pointed out some fallacies in his reasoning,

>> >but no model has yet emerged for lowering the odds enough to make the
>> >production of a full fledged prokaryote plausible in the whole age of
>> >the universe.
>>
>> >Can you improve on the Exaptor of the Gaps Gambit that I told Camp

>> >about? �Harshman swears by it, but has never been able to flesh it
>> >out. �I originally described it to him at much greater length and much
>> >greater specificity:
>>
>> >"A random protein A, catalyzing reactions �z1, ...zn [don't ask me

>> >what n is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess, was exapted via a
>> >string of mutations, while still serving some of these functions
>> >[don't ask me which ones it was still serving at the end of the
>> >string],
>>
>> >"exapted, I say, to give us a protein B, catalyzing reactions y1, ...
>> >y_m [don't ask me what m is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess,
>> >which in turn was exapted, via a string of mutations...
>> >...
>> >...
>> >"...which in turn was exapted to give us a protein Z, catalyzing the
>> >replacement of U with C that corrects any ribozyme transcribing DNA
>> >into mRNA but erroneously putting a U where C belongs."
>>
>> You present this as if it's a valid criticism of homegrown
>> abiogenesis.
>
>No, only a fleshing-out of the best that I've seen from any of its
>proponents.

My impression is those proponents don't agree that your paraphrase is
an accurate representation.

>A less sophisticated thing I've read on another thread from one of
>its proponents the other day went about like this: "Production of life
>is probably easy because look, we are here!"
>
>I can look up the exact quote -- but perhaps you know who and what I
>am talking about, yes?

No, I don't recognize the reference. Without a specific cite, the
best evidence suggests the above is another poor paraphrase or an
outright quotemine.

>> Why doesn't AOTA apply to the abiogenesis of your
>> initial DP planet?
>
>IMHO, it beat the superastronomical odds against the production of all
>the enzymes that make for life as we know it. Sort of like the stock
>example of all the air in the room collecting in one tiny corner if
>enough eons pass, simply because of the principle that "given enough
>time, anything that can happen, will happen".
>
>In this case, though, it is more like, "given enough universes like
>this one, anything that can happen will take place at some point in
>one of them."

That doesn't even begin to address the question I asked. Your DP
assumes an initial source abiogenesis, just somewhere else besides
Earth. The "superastronomical odds" of abiogenesis on any unspecified
planet at any given time are about the same, and your "Exaptor of the
Gaps" complaint logically applies to any abiogenesis anywhere. Yet
you apply it only to abiogenesis on Earth, and not to the abiogenesis
on your DP world. Why not?

In addition, you don't show your work for calculating your presumptive
"superastronomical odds" on which you base your complaint. That lack
gives the impression you're making a similar argument as Hoyle's
infamous "Tornado in a Junkyard" analogy. On what basis do you claim
that "the production of all enzymes" faces "superastromical odds"?

eridanus

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 5:05:23 AM4/17/13

to nyi...@bellsouth.net

El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 22:14:46 UTC+1, pnyikos escribiï¿½:
> On Apr 16, 4:33ï¿½pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 1:21ï¿½pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Apr 14, 10:39ï¿½am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> >
>
> > > > On Apr 14, 12:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>
> > > > > So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
>

> > > > > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

you know, Nyikos?
The worse attitude of yours is to complain about prosecution.
Your "scientific arguments" can be a trash, or a great thing.
Who fucking knows. Perhaps we are here before an uncomprehending
genius, like Cantor, or Gï¿½del, or Boltzmann. They all ended
paranoiac or depressed. One of them shut his brain off with a
revolver. I am just making a collect to raise you a monument
while you are still alive.

Then, if you are really a genius, you should stick to your
arguments, and keep refining them, and polishing the whole shit
and ignore in an Olympian way, all the teasing and the harassing
you can be suffering because "they" do not accept you are a real
genius.
I do not accept either you are genius in this matter of the
panespermia, for I am rather an callous incredulous, and do not
have any faith in some fields of science. I do not believe much
in the power of human intelligence to pierce most of the mysteries
of life and death.
Then, forget about the insults, forget that someone told you are
a moron, or you are totally nuts. You keep trying on this shit
of the panespermia, as it were a new gospel. Not all intellectual
efforts are a waste of time and energy. By example, Newton was
searching for years the Alchemy, in the hope of making gold out
of vulgar metals. he also passed many years searching what was
exactly the layout of the temple of Salomon, for he stupidly
thought that such a building should have magical properties and
be invulnerable. Then, a castle or a fort, build on the same way
as the temple of Salomon, would be invulnerable the sieges and
attacks with cannons. What learned Newton from all these efforts?
He learned not to believe in magic and philosophical reasoning.

Then, you should keep persevering even if most people here,
included me, believe you are crazy as a loon.
Keep your tempers cool, man. We all tend to make pranks on the
sheep that stray our from the herd. Even the wolves prefer to
attack a stray out sheep, that one within staying the herd.

Keep yourself cool, man, and do not complain of being persecuted.
If you ignore the guys that tease you, nobody would notice
your are being chaffed. The panespermia, then, could look as a
"sound science" to those that do not look inside the theories.
Most of us are within this category. There are lots of stupid
theories and "scientific" assertions that are passing unnoticed
as crap and are deemed a serious stuff.

Eridanus

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 8:17:36 AM4/17/13

to

On Apr 17, 12:13ï¿½am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:

> >On Apr 14, 9:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> >> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.

> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

> >Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
> >my paper at the following link:
> >www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
> >Looking forward to your comments.
> I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
> define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
> concept".
> If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter? It seems to be
> equally "impossible to define", at least without total dependence on
> other metaphysical concepts like "measurement", "time", "space" etc..

The problem is not only that the concept of 'life' is impossible to
define scientifically, it is also that a supposed boundary between a
'living' and a 'non living' system is totally arbitrary. Such a
boundary was invented by humans a long time ago. Moreover, at that
time, things like "rivers", mountains etc. were most often considered
as 'living' things.
Hence, to me it is useless, scientifically speaking, to make a
distinction between a 'living' and a 'non living' system or to look
for a supposed moment when 'non living' systems would have become
'living' (i.e., the so-called "abiogenesis").
Thus, what we usually call "biological" systems are not qualitatively
different from other self-organizing systems. However, all the extant
products of Darwinian evolution, after about 4 billion years of
Darwinian evolution, are indeed infinitely more complex,
quantitatively speaking.

> So where is the physical if the metaphysical is excluded from science?

The metaphysical is supposed to be more than the physical as
"metaphysics" means something which covers, surpasses, transcends
physics.
To me a scientific approach can only study the physical. The
metaphysical is supposed to be studied by philosophers (e.g. John
Wilkins).

jillery

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 11:31:28 AM4/17/13

to

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:17:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

>On Apr 17, 12:13�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:

>> >On Apr 14, 9:40�am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. �Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>> >> So all we have to do is find this �primordial soup�, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. � That�s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller�Urey experiment in *1952*. � � But that is not what they actually did find. �They found that the pieces don�t just snap right together. �In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. � That�s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin�s horses and all Dawkins men can�t make a living cell from scratch again.
>> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. �Check the science channel, they don�t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. � Yet they call it science. �LOL. � It�s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. � Thank logic for computers � at least we can count on them to be logical.

I suspect Wilkins disagrees with you on that point.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 11:42:08 AM4/17/13

to

On Apr 17, 5:31ï¿½pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:17:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:

> >On Apr 17, 12:13ï¿½am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> wrote:

> >> >On Apr 14, 9:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> >> >> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.

> >> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

And what is your own opinion?

Kermit

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 1:51:49 PM4/17/13

to

On 16 Apr, 13:38, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 11:11ï¿½am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere

> > might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Millerï¿½

> > Urey experiment.
>
> Yes, but the differences aren't all in favor of abiogenesis.
>
> > There is abundant evidence of major volcanic
> > eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon
> > dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur
> > dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in

> > addition to the ones in the original Millerï¿½Urey experiment have

> > produced more diverse molecules.[8]"
>
> "in addition to" is unwarranted by the "abundant evidence," which
> suggests that two of the main ingredients of Urey-Miller, ammonia and
> methane, were in short supply.
>
> More importantly, those "more diverse molecules" are not significantly
> closer to the first prokaryote than the ones Miller produced.
>

They are a prerequisite, I would think. I do not have a significant
background in biochemistry or any other science to have opinions on
how this happened. I do know that we know more than Miller and Urey
did, and I also know that our research into abiogenesis is still
elementary.

I expect this:
Assuming civilization does not collapse, we will eventually know
enough about early Earth conditions to say:
"Not only is this path here <points to a newly written book> possible,
but it would have been inevitable given these known conditions."

But perhaps they will say:
"Well, these are the early conditions, and we don't think we're
overlooking anything important, but we're damned if we can see how it
could have happened here. We're stumped."

> Peter Nyikos

kermit

jillery

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 2:25:17 PM4/17/13

to

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:42:08 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

>On Apr 17, 5:31�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:17:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:

>> >On Apr 17, 12:13�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> >> wrote:

>> >> >On Apr 14, 9:40�am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. �Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.

>> >> >> So all we have to do is find this �primordial soup�, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. � That�s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller�Urey experiment in *1952*. � � But that is not what they actually did find. �They found that the pieces don�t just snap right together. �In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. � That�s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin�s horses and all Dawkins men can�t make a living cell from scratch again.
>> >> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. �Check the science channel, they don�t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. � Yet they call it science. �LOL. � It�s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. � Thank logic for computers � at least we can count on them to be logical.

There was a time when "philosophy" and "science" were synonymous. As
science became more involved with material evidence, and the
techniques for obtaining them, the two disciplines diverged. Nowadays
there are many people in education and science who express the opinion
that scientists can do their own philosophizing. On that point my
opinion is that opinion is wrong.

There is a methodological need for science to focus on physical
evidence, but there are questions which don't involve physical
evidence. There are also questions about science which become
neglected due to scientists' focus on collecting and evaluating
physical evidence. So depending on your definition of
"metaphysical", there are questions which scientists and the
methodology of science handle poorly. Those two categories are where
a pure philosopher can contribute.

eridanus

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 3:35:44 PM4/17/13

to

El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 19:25:17 UTC+1, jillery escribi�:

Sometimes scientists are trapped in a field of inquire and are
disoriented. Do do figure a way to establish a theoretical
paradigm. During this frustrating period... they have not other
option than collect data. This happened in geology, and even
in astronomy. They could not make any sense of what they were
watching; so they collected data. It is more sound to collect
data that establish bogus raw theories.

> So depending on your definition of
> "metaphysical", there are questions which scientists and the
> methodology of science handle poorly. Those two categories are where
> a pure philosopher can contribute.

It would be a great thing if he can. I wish him the best luck in this
adventure.

Eridanus

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 3:50:37 PM4/17/13

to

On Apr 17, 8:25ï¿½pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:42:08 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:

> >On Apr 17, 5:31ï¿½pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:17:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> wrote:

> >> >On Apr 17, 12:13ï¿½am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> >> wrote:

> >> >> >On Apr 14, 9:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> >> >> >> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.

> >> >> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

> There was a time when "philosophy" and "science" were synonymous. ï¿½As

> science became more involved with material evidence, and the

> techniques for obtaining them, the two disciplines diverged. ï¿½Nowadays

> there are many people in education and science who express the opinion

> that scientists can do their own philosophizing. ï¿½On that point my

> opinion is that opinion is wrong.
> There is a methodological need for science to focus on physical
> evidence, but there are questions which don't involve physical

> evidence. ï¿½There are also questions about science which become

> neglected due to scientists' focus on collecting and evaluating

> physical evidence. ï¿½ So depending on your definition of

> "metaphysical", there are questions which scientists and the

> methodology of science handle poorly. ï¿½Those two categories are where

> a pure philosopher can contribute.

I think it is easier to delineate what "the physical world" is.
To me it is all which is approachable to observation and/or
measurement in at least our physical universe.

Kalkidas

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 5:33:12 PM4/17/13

to

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:17:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

>On Apr 17, 12:13�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:

>> >On Apr 14, 9:40�am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. �Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>> >> So all we have to do is find this �primordial soup�, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. � That�s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller�Urey experiment in *1952*. � � But that is not what they actually did find. �They found that the pieces don�t just snap right together. �In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. � That�s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin�s horses and all Dawkins men can�t make a living cell from scratch again.
>> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. �Check the science channel, they don�t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. � Yet they call it science. �LOL. � It�s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. � Thank logic for computers � at least we can count on them to be logical.

>> >Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
>> >my paper at the following link:
>> >www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
>> >Looking forward to your comments.
>> I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
>> define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
>> concept".
>> If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter? It seems to be
>> equally "impossible to define", at least without total dependence on
>> other metaphysical concepts like "measurement", "time", "space" etc..
>
>The problem is not only that the concept of 'life' is impossible to
>define scientifically, it is also that a supposed boundary between a
>'living' and a 'non living' system is totally arbitrary. Such a
>boundary was invented by humans a long time ago. Moreover, at that
>time, things like "rivers", mountains etc. were most often considered
>as 'living' things.

The distinction between living and non-living is "totally" arbitrary?
I think not. I think it is founded on empirical data, for instance in
the observed difference between a living body and a dead body. Or the
observation that stones don't eat, sleep, or reproduce, and lack
anything resembling a cell.

>Hence, to me it is useless, scientifically speaking, to make a
>distinction between a 'living' and a 'non living' system or to look
>for a supposed moment when 'non living' systems would have become
>'living' (i.e., the so-called "abiogenesis").
>Thus, what we usually call "biological" systems are not qualitatively
>different from other self-organizing systems. However, all the extant
>products of Darwinian evolution, after about 4 billion years of
>Darwinian evolution, are indeed infinitely more complex,
>quantitatively speaking.
>
>> So where is the physical if the metaphysical is excluded from science?
>
>The metaphysical is supposed to be more than the physical as
>"metaphysics" means something which covers, surpasses, transcends
>physics.
>To me a scientific approach can only study the physical. The
>metaphysical is supposed to be studied by philosophers (e.g. John
>Wilkins).

That is indeed my objection, that you appropriate the term "science"
in such a way as to exclude really existing --though metaphysical--
things from its purview.

Kalkidas

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 5:35:17 PM4/17/13

to

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:28:44 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 6:13�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:
>>

>> >On Apr 14, 9:40�am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. �Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>> >> So all we have to do is find this �primordial soup�, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. � That�s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller�Urey experiment in *1952*. � � But that is not what they actually did find. �They found that the pieces don�t just snap right together. �In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. � That�s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin�s horses and all Dawkins men can�t make a living cell from scratch again.
>> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. �Check the science channel, they don�t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. � Yet they call it science. �LOL. � It�s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. � Thank logic for computers � at least we can count on them to be logical.

>>
>> >Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
>> >my paper at the following link:
>> >www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
>> >Looking forward to your comments.
>>
>> I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
>> define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
>> concept".
>
>One problem is that there is a big gray area between what everyone
>would acknowledge to be "life" and what everyone would acknowledge to
>be "non-life". Where do viruses or viroids fit in, for instance?
>
>> If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter?
>
>Whoa! Don't you think living things are made of matter?

Actually, I think living things are not made of matter. they are made
of spirit, indeed they are spirits. They cannot be studied by material
instruments. But they can be studied scientifically.

Burkhard

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 6:06:11 PM4/17/13

to

On Apr 17, 10:33ï¿½pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:17:36 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 17, 12:13ï¿½am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> wrote:

> >> >On Apr 14, 9:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> >> >> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.

> >> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

> >> >Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
> >> >my paper at the following link:
> >> >www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
> >> >Looking forward to your comments.
> >> I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
> >> define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
> >> concept".
> >> If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter? It seems to be
> >> equally "impossible to define", at least without total dependence on
> >> other metaphysical concepts like "measurement", "time", "space" etc..
>
> >The problem is not only that the concept of 'life' is impossible to
> >define scientifically, it is also that a supposed boundary between a
> >'living' and a 'non living' system is totally arbitrary. Such a
> >boundary was invented by humans a long time ago. Moreover, at that
> >time, things like "rivers", mountains etc. were most often considered
> >as 'living' things.
>
> The distinction between living and non-living is "totally" arbitrary?
> I think not. I think it is founded on empirical data, for instance in
> the observed difference between a living body and a dead body. Or the
> observation that stones don't eat, sleep, or reproduce, and lack
> anything resembling a cell.
>
>

The really worrying thing is that Marc is a medical doctor. Call me
old fashioned, but I like my medics to understand the difference
between an autopsy and an aortography, and to know on what they should
never carry out the former.....

Robert Camp

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 6:48:14 PM4/17/13

to

Can you elaborate on these last two sentences, paying some attention
to the question of whether you use the word "scientifically"
idiosyncratically, or as the rest of us do?

Mark Isaak

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 8:51:33 PM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/13 5:17 AM, marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> [...]

> The problem is not only that the concept of 'life' is impossible to
> define scientifically, it is also that a supposed boundary between a
> 'living' and a 'non living' system is totally arbitrary. Such a
> boundary was invented by humans a long time ago. Moreover, at that
> time, things like "rivers", mountains etc. were most often considered
> as 'living' things.
> Hence, to me it is useless, scientifically speaking, to make a
> distinction between a 'living' and a 'non living' system or to look
> for a supposed moment when 'non living' systems would have become
> 'living' (i.e., the so-called "abiogenesis").

Does this mean that if (god forbid) someone murdered you, they could be
acquitted by arguing, "By his own admission, it was impossible to know
if he was alive when I put the bullets in him, and it is impossible to
know if he is dead now"?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Thrinaxodon

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 11:32:20 PM4/17/13

to

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:28:52 PM UTC-4, pnyikos wrote:
> On Apr 14, 6:11ï¿½pm, Thrinaxodon <biolo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:40:38 AM UTC-4, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>
> >
>
> > > So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.
>
> >
>

> > > Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

> Peter Nyikos
>
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>
> University of South Carolina
>
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu

It was useful to use against sourcecode. It's not a model, plainly obvious. But, it gives him an education. You want a model, here:

http://www.imb-jena.de/RNA.html

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 5:08:15 AM4/18/13

to

On Apr 18, 2:51�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

> On 4/17/13 5:17 AM, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > The problem is not only that the concept of 'life' is impossible to
> > define scientifically, it is also that a supposed boundary between a
> > 'living' and a 'non living' system is totally arbitrary. Such a
> > boundary was invented by humans a long time ago. Moreover, at that
> > time, things like "rivers", mountains etc. were most often considered
> > as 'living' things.
> > Hence, to me it is useless, scientifically speaking, to make a
> > distinction between a 'living' and a 'non living' system or to look
> > for a supposed moment when 'non living' systems would have become
> > 'living' (i.e., the so-called "abiogenesis").
> Does this mean that if (god forbid) someone murdered you, they could be
> acquitted by arguing, "By his own admission, it was impossible to know
> if he was alive when I put the bullets in him, and it is impossible to
> know if he is dead now"?

I have already discussed this point which is quite different than the
one of supposing a boundary between 'living' and 'non living' systems.
The problem you consider is the following: when considering a self-
organizing far-from-equilibrium system (like a hurricane and of course
like any products of Darwinian evolution) either it is still working,
i.e. it is still far-from-equilibrium and able to maintain itself far-
from-equilibrium being fed by its environment (e.g. a hurricane which
is still on hot sea and fed by hot water) or its pattern will break
down because it cannot be fed anymore by the environment (e.g. the
hurricane when it goes onto the land).
When a self-organizing system is still working you can say it is
alive. When its pattern breaks down and the system is no more able to
be fed by its environment you can say it is dead.
This reasoning can be applied to any products of Darwinian evolution.

eridanus

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 7:02:27 AM4/18/13

to

El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 22:33:12 UTC+1, Kalkidas escribi�:

There is a little problem with this Kalkidas.
We only can observe what can be seen, either directly or indirectly.
Just consider the neutrinos. They were not seen. Someone had this
idea of the neutrino analyzing statistically the energy of particles
of beta decay. It was missing some energy, and they explained it
by imagines existed something called neutrinos that contained the
missing mass. Well, so far so good. But the problem was how to prove
that the neutrinos really existed. For many decades they were making
failed experiments to check on the existence of neutrinos. At least
it seems they had solved the puzzle if I take as true some video
I had downloaded from you tube.

Then the problem of metaphysical entities, it can be comparable to the
case of the neutrinos. Have we any way to detect something
metaphysical? What if the existence of metaphysical entities are
pure delusions of our contaminated brains? We can believe as easily
in metaphysical entities as in Our Lord Hari Krishna. We have to
invent some device to detect the presence of Hari Krishna, or of
physical entities as well.

Are we really talking about fairies? The fairies can be very well
metaphysical entities. Why not? Then, we can multiply the number
of metaphysical entities till the point of wrecking totally our
brains with huge piles of trash.

Wow! the idea is depressing.
We have not enough time or energy to solve real problems, physical
problems, and we are wasting our brain energy by contemplating
the existence of the fairies and the diversity of fairies, for not
all fairies are equal.

Utterly depressing.

Eridanus

Mark Isaak

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 1:53:50 PM4/18/13

to

That sure sounds like a distinction between living and non-living
systems to me.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 3:02:30 PM4/18/13

to

On Apr 18, 7:53�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

You may say so. But then you will consider that a hurricane is a
'living' system: will you?
Actually this way of considering that a given system is working (i.e.
'alive') or broken down (i.e. 'dead') can be extrapolated to any far-
from-equilibrium systems which produce energy such as stars or can
transform a form of energy into another one like many human devices
(e.g. radio, car, television, mobile etc.). Then will you consider
these systems as 'living' systems too?

Bill

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 3:49:48 PM4/18/13

to

No, it seems like "living" usefully defines a subset of "far from
equilibrium dissipative systems" which does not include hurricanes and
refrigerators. Perhaps a useful word to keep in circulation.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 4:25:19 PM4/18/13

to

Of course you may consider as 'living' systems only specific "far-from-
equilibrium dissipative systems" such as:
1. those than are able to reproduce: then you will consider that the
present lipid vesicles that the scientists are able to produce and use
in their experiments are 'living' systems;
2. or those than are able to reproduce and to have heritable
properties: then we will consider that only systems which can show
Darwinian evolution are 'living';
3. or those able to reproduce and to have heritable properties
supported by nucleic acids-like compounds: then we will consider that
systems which can show Darwinian evolution only based on nucleic acids-
like compounds are 'living';
etc.

Bill

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 4:42:02 PM4/18/13

to

Sure, you can pick whatever definition you find most useful. As long
as the guy you are talking to knows which one you are using, there's
no problem.

Kalkidas

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 4:52:32 PM4/18/13

to

Nice try. But I use "science" in its common sense, i.e. as the
scientific method of hypotheses confirmed or rejected by experiment.

Now, the idiosyncratic use of "science" is as a particular and
restricted subject of study, namely the study of matter and its forms,
rather than a method of studying any subject whatsoever, which science
assuredly is.

Kalkidas

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 4:55:44 PM4/18/13

to

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 04:02:27 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

You seem to think that metaphysical entities cannot be perceived. I
don't know where you got that idea, except from, as I said, the misuse
of the term "science" by people who have an agenda to destroy
metaphysics.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 5:01:33 PM4/18/13

to

So you agree that there are as many possible distinctions between
'living' and 'non living' systems as you want and thus that, whatever
the distinction, it is arbitrary.

Bill

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 5:34:47 PM4/18/13

to

I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary. The meanings of all words are
"arbitrary" in the sense that they are human conventions. Some
definitions are more useful than others. That is a characteristic not
just of the word "living" but of "blue", "male," "intelligent,"
"French" "language", "game", whatever word you want.

You seem to think that because a word does not have an infinitely
precise meaning that it therefore has no meaning whatsoever. "Living"
has a perfectly good range of meanings that are understood by people
who use the word. The definition can be made more precise as needed
for any particular purpose..

Robert Camp

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 9:51:00 PM4/18/13

to

On Apr 18, 1:52ï¿½pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:48:14 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >On Apr 17, 2:35ï¿½pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:28:44 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >> >On Apr 16, 6:13ï¿½pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> >> wrote:
>

> >> >> >On Apr 14, 9:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> >> >> >> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.

> >> >> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> >> >> >Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
> >> >> >my paper at the following link:
> >> >> >www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
> >> >> >Looking forward to your comments.
>
> >> >> I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
> >> >> define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
> >> >> concept".
>
> >> >One problem is that there is a big gray area between what everyone
> >> >would acknowledge to be "life" and what everyone would acknowledge to

> >> >be "non-life". ï¿½Where do viruses or viroids fit in, for instance?

>
> >> >> If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter?
>

> >> >Whoa! ï¿½Don't you think living things are made of matter?

>
> >> Actually, I think living things are not made of matter. they are made
> >> of spirit, indeed they are spirits. They cannot be studied by material
> >> instruments. But they can be studied scientifically.
>
> >Can you elaborate on these last two sentences, paying some attention
> >to the question of whether you use the word "scientifically"
> >idiosyncratically, or as the rest of us do?
>
> Nice try. But I use "science" in its common sense, i.e. as the
> scientific method of hypotheses confirmed or rejected by experiment.

Yet the "common sense" in which the "science" is used in no way
proscribres its ability to study living things, including by the use
of "material instruments." How do you reconcile this direct
contradiction with your still apparently idiosyncratic use of the
word?

> Now, the idiosyncratic use of "science" is as a particular and
> restricted subject of study, namely the study of matter and its forms,
> rather than a method of studying any subject whatsoever, which science
> assuredly is.

Yet you are the one restricting the study of living things by use of
"material instruments." It all seemed, and still seems, pretty
confused to me, which is why I asked for clarification.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 10:49:00 PM4/18/13

to

The point is, there are some systems which I consider "living," and
others which I consider "non-living," and on which points all people who
are sane and speak English agree. You make much of the fact that the
division between the two is arbitrary. That is true. That is also a
very different thing from saying that there is no distinction between
the two. There *is* a distinction, and you recognize it, even if you
cannot put it into words, even if nobody can put it into words. This
fly flying away from me is alive. This lump of sandstone is not alive.
You know that. It is no use pretending you don't.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 4:22:21 AM4/19/13

to

On Apr 19, 4:49 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

Actually I agree that, for the daily life (if I dare use such an
expression!), it is of course convenient to use the word 'life'.
Problems arise when your objective is to search for the origin of the
emergence of the products of Darwinian evolution. For such a research
the relevant track is to deal only with the mechanism of Darwinian
evolution and no more with the concept of 'life'.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 4:27:57 AM4/19/13

to

Of course we have already discussed the matter many times and I have
no hope to convince you that my way of dealing with the problem is the
most relevant.
However just to clarify it once again: when searching for the origin
of the emergence of the products of Darwinian evolution I think the
most relevant track is to deal with the mechanism of Darwinian
evolution and not with the concept of 'life' which is much too fuzzy.

c

Bill

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 8:19:32 AM4/19/13

to

Fuzziness is fine. Indeed, fuzziness is appropriate when we do not
know in advance exactly what we are looking for.

The way to convince anyone that your approach is "most relevant" is to
stop fussing about concepts and definitions, go to the lab, and show
that you can get interesting cycles of variation and selection with
your lipid vesicles. Everything else is just talk.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 11:37:43 AM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/13 1:22 AM, marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> On Apr 19, 4:49 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 4/18/13 12:02 PM, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 7:53 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/13 2:08 AM, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 18, 2:51 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/17/13 5:17 AM, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>>>>>> The problem is not only that the concept of 'life' is impossible to
>>>>>>> define scientifically, it is also that a supposed boundary between a
>>>>>>> 'living' and a 'non living' system is totally arbitrary. Such a
>>>>>>> boundary was invented by humans a long time ago. Moreover, at that
>>>>>>> time, things like "rivers", mountains etc. were most often considered
>>>>>>> as 'living' things.
>>>>>>> Hence, to me it is useless, scientifically speaking, to make a
>>>>>>> distinction between a 'living' and a 'non living' system or to look
>>>>>>> for a supposed moment when 'non living' systems would have become
>>>>>>> 'living' (i.e., the so-called "abiogenesis").

>>>>>> [...]

>> The point is, there are some systems which I consider "living," and
>> others which I consider "non-living," and on which points all people who
>> are sane and speak English agree. You make much of the fact that the
>> division between the two is arbitrary. That is true. That is also a
>> very different thing from saying that there is no distinction between
>> the two. There *is* a distinction, and you recognize it, even if you
>> cannot put it into words, even if nobody can put it into words. This
>> fly flying away from me is alive. This lump of sandstone is not alive.
>> You know that. It is no use pretending you don't.
>
> Actually I agree that, for the daily life (if I dare use such an
> expression!), it is of course convenient to use the word 'life'.
> Problems arise when your objective is to search for the origin of the
> emergence of the products of Darwinian evolution. For such a research
> the relevant track is to deal only with the mechanism of Darwinian
> evolution and no more with the concept of 'life'.

Then we are largely in agreement. Please, though, stop saying "no
distinction" when what you mean is that the distinction is fuzzy.

Incidentally, I expect we will find that the boundary between presence
and absence of mechanisms of Darwinian evolution is also fuzzy. Nature
works like that.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 12:27:01 PM4/19/13

to

On Apr 19, 5:37 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

If you like but it is really what I think.

> Incidentally, I expect we will find that the boundary between presence
> and absence of mechanisms of Darwinian evolution is also fuzzy. Nature
> works like that.

If my model of emergence of Darwinian evolution (in only one step) is
confirmed by the future experiments it would mean that the boundary
between presence and absence of the mechanism of Darwinian evolution
(at the beginning of its history) was not fuzzy at all.

Kalkidas

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 5:40:29 PM4/19/13

to

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 18, 1:52 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:48:14 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Apr 17, 2:35 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:28:44 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> >> >On Apr 16, 6:13 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> >> >> wrote:
>>

>> >> >> >On Apr 14, 9:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
>> >> >> >> So all we have to do is find this “primordial soup”, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That’s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller–Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don’t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin’s horses and all Dawkins men can’t make a living cell from scratch again.
>> >> >> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don’t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It’s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers – at least we can count on them to be logical.

>>
>> >> >> >Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
>> >> >> >my paper at the following link:
>> >> >> >www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
>> >> >> >Looking forward to your comments.
>>
>> >> >> I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
>> >> >> define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
>> >> >> concept".
>>
>> >> >One problem is that there is a big gray area between what everyone
>> >> >would acknowledge to be "life" and what everyone would acknowledge to

>> >> >be "non-life". Where do viruses or viroids fit in, for instance?

>>
>> >> >> If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter?
>>

>> >> >Whoa! Don't you think living things are made of matter?

>>
>> >> Actually, I think living things are not made of matter. they are made
>> >> of spirit, indeed they are spirits. They cannot be studied by material
>> >> instruments. But they can be studied scientifically.
>>
>> >Can you elaborate on these last two sentences, paying some attention
>> >to the question of whether you use the word "scientifically"
>> >idiosyncratically, or as the rest of us do?
>>
>> Nice try. But I use "science" in its common sense, i.e. as the
>> scientific method of hypotheses confirmed or rejected by experiment.
>
>Yet the "common sense" in which the "science" is used in no way
>proscribres its ability to study living things, including by the use
>of "material instruments." How do you reconcile this direct
>contradiction with your still apparently idiosyncratic use of the
>word?

What contradiction? One must use instruments appropriate to the entity
one is examining. Do you measure surface area with a thermometer?

>> Now, the idiosyncratic use of "science" is as a particular and
>> restricted subject of study, namely the study of matter and its forms,
>> rather than a method of studying any subject whatsoever, which science
>> assuredly is.
>
>Yet you are the one restricting the study of living things by use of
>"material instruments." It all seemed, and still seems, pretty
>confused to me, which is why I asked for clarification.

I have defined "living thing" as a spiritual entity. You may disagree
with that definition, but that doesn't make my arguments invalid.

Robert Camp

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 10:07:25 PM4/19/13

to

On Apr 19, 2:40ï¿½pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >On Apr 18, 1:52ï¿½pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:48:14 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>
> >> <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> >On Apr 17, 2:35ï¿½pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:28:44 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >> >> >On Apr 16, 6:13ï¿½pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> >> >> wrote:
>

> >> >> >> >On Apr 14, 9:40ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> >> >> >> >> So all we have to do is find this ï¿½primordial soupï¿½, plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s what they thought was going to happen after the Millerï¿½Urey experiment in *1952*. ï¿½ ï¿½ But that is not what they actually did find. ï¿½They found that the pieces donï¿½t just snap right together. ï¿½In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. ï¿½ Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwinï¿½s horses and all Dawkins men canï¿½t make a living cell from scratch again.

> >> >> >> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. ï¿½Check the science channel, they donï¿½t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. ï¿½ Yet they call it science. ï¿½LOL. ï¿½ Itï¿½s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. ï¿½ Thank logic for computers ï¿½ at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> >> >> >> >Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
> >> >> >> >my paper at the following link:
> >> >> >> >www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
> >> >> >> >Looking forward to your comments.
>
> >> >> >> I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
> >> >> >> define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
> >> >> >> concept".
>
> >> >> >One problem is that there is a big gray area between what everyone
> >> >> >would acknowledge to be "life" and what everyone would acknowledge to

> >> >> >be "non-life". ï¿½Where do viruses or viroids fit in, for instance?

>
> >> >> >> If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter?
>

> >> >> >Whoa! ï¿½Don't you think living things are made of matter?

>
> >> >> Actually, I think living things are not made of matter. they are made
> >> >> of spirit, indeed they are spirits. They cannot be studied by material
> >> >> instruments. But they can be studied scientifically.
>
> >> >Can you elaborate on these last two sentences, paying some attention
> >> >to the question of whether you use the word "scientifically"
> >> >idiosyncratically, or as the rest of us do?
>
> >> Nice try. But I use "science" in its common sense, i.e. as the
> >> scientific method of hypotheses confirmed or rejected by experiment.
>
> >Yet the "common sense" in which the "science" is used in no way
> >proscribres its ability to study living things, including by the use
> >of "material instruments." How do you reconcile this direct
> >contradiction with your still apparently idiosyncratic use of the
> >word?
>
> What contradiction? One must use instruments appropriate to the entity
> one is examining. Do you measure surface area with a thermometer?

There is either a contradiction in your claim to use science "in its
common sense," which very plainly *cannot* be squared with your claim
that living things can't be studied by material instruments, or you
entertain an enormous misapprehension as to what constitutes science
"in it's common sense."

> >> Now, the idiosyncratic use of "science" is as a particular and
> >> restricted subject of study, namely the study of matter and its forms,
> >> rather than a method of studying any subject whatsoever, which science
> >> assuredly is.
>
> >Yet you are the one restricting the study of living things by use of
> >"material instruments." It all seemed, and still seems, pretty
> >confused to me, which is why I asked for clarification.
>
> I have defined "living thing" as a spiritual entity. You may disagree
> with that definition, but that doesn't make my arguments invalid.

But even if it is granted that "living things" are partly spiritual,
that doesn't mean the part which is material cannot be studied by
material instruments. Which leaves your only out to be a claim that
living things have no material component. But to rest one's argument,
as you would then be doing, on a clearly counterfactual dichotomy -
i.e., material = non-living, spiritual = living - would be beyond
special pleading, it would be a Martinezian redefinition of common
usage.

So it's my opinion that this is merely another example of you offering
dogma as a substitute for reasoned argument. That does not surprise
me, what does surprise me is that you're willing to claim, at the same
time, that you are using science "in the common sense."

Surely that was tongue-in-cheek?

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 2:32:57 AM4/20/13

to

On 19 avr, 23:40, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

<snip for focus>

> I have defined "living thing" as a spiritual entity. You may disagree
> with that definition, but that doesn't make my arguments invalid.

I agree that the notion of a 'living' thing is a 'spiritual' entity.
That is why I assert that the concept of 'life' is a metaphysical
concept invented by humans.

Nick Keighley

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 4:02:52 AM4/20/13

to

how do I perform experiments on spirits?

eridanus

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 6:39:03 AM4/20/13

to

spirits are to be believed as indirect evidence. Some people tells you
about an experience he had with the spirits, you must believe it.

you cannot check on spirits to see if they are real or fake. Spirits
cannot be detected in a fog chamber of Wilson, sorry for the old example.
Spirits are not affected by magnetic or electrical fields, and we had
not any other detector of its existence, than your faith. If you
believe that the spirits exist must be true. But if I not believe in
the spirits they do not exist at all. They are undetectable, except some
special people like Ray Ramirez. He is able to spot a spirit in
the most unexpected of the places.

Eridanus

Burkhard

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 8:21:31 AM4/20/13

to

On Apr 20, 9:02 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://shop.boisdale.co.uk/members/Events2/event_detail.aspx/?id=123

Frank J

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 9:31:54 AM4/20/13

to

On 14 Apr, 03:40, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> So all we have to do is find this primordial soup , plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin s horses and all Dawkins men can t make a living cell from scratch again.
> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers at least we can count on them to be logical.

After 15 years on these boards it's a safe bet that everyone who
replied took your bait instead of asking you if you posted that on
*anti-evolution* sites. As you know, most of those sites advocate
failed "theories" that imply that abiogenesis occurred many times
(once for each "kind"). So if the supposed lack of a model, and/or
"improbability" for abiogenesis is a problem for evolution, it's a
HUGE problem for creationism/ID.

So are you one of those pseudoskeptics who claims to have "no dog in
the fight"? If not which "dog" are you rooting for?

Walter Bushell

unread,

Apr 22, 2013, 9:54:00 PM4/22/13

to

<http://xkcd.com/384/>

That just about says it all.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

sourceco...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 23, 2013, 1:03:46 AM4/23/13

to

I am pro-logic and pro-evidence and pro-reasoning. Why do site labels matter as to reasoning? They don't.

sourceco...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 23, 2013, 1:18:19 AM4/23/13

to

On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:46:58 AM UTC-5, solar penguin wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:40:38 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:
>
>
>
> > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial
>
> > environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from
>
> > physical laws.
>
>
>

> And is it possible to model something like "falling in love"? If not,
>
> does that mean people can't fall in love because it's not a natural
>
> phenomenon?

>
>
>
> > That’s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952*
>
>
>

> If we were discussing about whether oxygen or phlogiston is responsible
>
> for fire, people would quote Lavoisier's experiment from *1774*.
>
>
>
> If we were discussing white light as a mixture of colours, people would
>
> quote Sir Isaac Newton's experiment from *1672*.
>
>
>
> If we were discussing acceleration and mass, people would quote Galileo's
>
> Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment from *1589*.
>
>
>
> Why should the year matter? If the experiment is good, it remains so
>
> even after time has passed.

lol. So weak.
People quite it because at that time people truly believed that they could coax life to occur. They thought it we could make it happen and they used Miller-Urey as their rally cry. Then they actually found the opposite. They found in lab after lab that it was actually VERY DIFFICULT to coax life to occur.

But that did not fit the PROPER POLICICAL view so everyone downplayed it and instead keep quoting an experiemnt from *1952*. You try to play it off like it was a major accomplishment, but we actually found the OPPOSITE. But nobody can talk about it because it is not POLITICALLY CORRECT.

Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species in 1859 BEFORE we really had any understanding of cells BEFORE we really knew anything of atoms. And as we got more and more EVIDENCE that shows how hard life is to form, all of Darwins Religious Fanatics brushed all of the EVIDENCE under the rug and kept on with the party line.

It is politics all over again with the "True believers" having a religous devotion--just like humans always do in every nation in every age. But one thing it is not: LOGICAL.

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr

unread,

Apr 23, 2013, 2:11:02 AM4/23/13

to

On 23 avr, 07:18, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:46:58 AM UTC-5, solar penguin wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:40:38 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:

> > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial

> > > environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from
> > > physical laws.

> > And is it possible to model something like "falling in love"? ï¿½If not,

> > does that mean people can't fall in love because it's not a natural
> > phenomenon?

> > > Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952*

> > If we were discussing about whether oxygen or phlogiston is responsible
> > for fire, people would quote Lavoisier's experiment from *1774*.
> > If we were discussing white light as a mixture of colours, people would
> > quote Sir Isaac Newton's experiment from *1672*.
> > If we were discussing acceleration and mass, people would quote Galileo's
> > Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment from *1589*.

> > Why should the year matter? ï¿½If the experiment is good, it remains so

> > even after time has passed.
> lol. So weak.

> People quite it because at that time people truly believed that they could coax life to occur. ï¿½They thought it we could make it happen and they used Miller-Urey as their rally cry. ï¿½Then they actually found the opposite. They found in lab after lab that it was actually VERY DIFFICULT to coax life to occur.

Of course.
The reason is that the good question is not : "How 'life' began?"
because it is a metaphysical question.
The good question is: "How Darwinian evolution began?".

> But that did not fit the PROPER POLICICAL view so everyone downplayed it and instead keep quoting an experiemnt from *1952*. ï¿½You try to play it off like it was a major accomplishment, but we actually found the OPPOSITE. ï¿½But nobody can talk about it because it is not POLITICALLY CORRECT.
> Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species in 1859 BEFORE we really had any understanding of cells BEFORE we really knew anything of atoms. ï¿½And as we got more and more EVIDENCE that shows how hard life is to form, all of Darwins Religious Fanatics brushed all of the EVIDENCE under the rug and kept on with the party line.
> It is politics all over again with the "True believers" having a religous devotion--just like humans always do in every nation in every age. ï¿½But one thing it is not: LOGICAL.

jillery

unread,

Apr 23, 2013, 2:54:43 AM4/23/13

to

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:54:00 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

><http://xkcd.com/384/>
>
>
>That just about says it all.

Randall Munroe got this one wrong.

Mark Isaak

unread,

Apr 23, 2013, 10:13:24 AM4/23/13

to

On 4/22/13 10:03 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I am pro-logic and pro-evidence and pro-reasoning.

And so, wanting to keep them in pristine condition, you never use them
yourself.

jillery

unread,

Apr 23, 2013, 11:41:39 AM4/23/13

to

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:13:24 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 4/22/13 10:03 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> I am pro-logic and pro-evidence and pro-reasoning.
>
>And so, wanting to keep them in pristine condition, you never use them
>yourself.

SNAP!

Bob Casanova

unread,

Apr 23, 2013, 2:12:09 PM4/23/13

to

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:54:00 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

><http://xkcd.com/384/>
>
>
>That just about says it all.

To be fair, Drake never proposed anything "hard" about the
values assigned to the various terms; his only purpose was
to conceptualize and define the terms, and despite the
attempts here to invoke arguments from authority, neither
did Drake's rational contemporaries. Others, who should have
known better (and still should, as demonstrated here), made
the mistake of treating the placeholder values as Gospel
(sorry...).
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

jillery

unread,

Apr 23, 2013, 3:47:50 PM4/23/13

to

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:12:09 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:54:00 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
>><http://xkcd.com/384/>
>>
>>
>>That just about says it all.
>
>To be fair, Drake never proposed anything "hard" about the
>values assigned to the various terms; his only purpose was
>to conceptualize and define the terms, and despite the
>attempts here to invoke arguments from authority, neither
>did Drake's rational contemporaries. Others, who should have
>known better (and still should, as demonstrated here), made
>the mistake of treating the placeholder values as Gospel
>(sorry...).

Yeppers.

Bill

unread,

Apr 24, 2013, 6:42:59 AM4/24/13

to

When you started posting here, you made the claim that you were
religiously neutral, had not been indoctrinated in any way, and argued
purely from a disinterested, logical point of view. I'm perfectly
happy to take those claims at face value. In spite of the fact that
your arguments bear a striking resemblance to those frequently offered
by creationists with a doctrinaire, religious commitment to finding
design in biology and denying the science of evolution. But that's
fine. I've been happy to deal with your arguments on their own terms.

You should show the same courtesy to others here. Deal with their
arguments as arguments on their own terms instead of trying to wave
them away as just examples of politically correct indoctrination.

sourceco...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 24, 2013, 10:44:29 PM4/24/13

to

You seem to keep regarding my use of the word "indoctrination" as some sort of cop-out rather than a valid point, if not THE valid point.

For a momement, put all other issues aside and assume, for the sake of arguement, that you have been indoctrinated into your belief system. I know you don't believe this but just pretend it is true to follow my next point. IF it is true, THEN it becomes the dominate issue, since no other reasoning even matters in such a case.

Now I know we disagree on that point, but at least realize that I'm not simply "waving people off" who do not agree with me. I am making (IMO) an honest evaluation of the facts and determining that indoctrination is most valid explaination. It IS a valid point and THE most valid point.

Note that my evalutation is solidly based on human Mythology, Religion and the content of people's responses. I you disagree about the existance of this indoctrination but I hope you can at least see that it is not a "cop out" but a valid point as seen from my point of view.

Bill

unread,

Apr 25, 2013, 7:12:24 AM4/25/13

to

Well, you seem entirely indoctrinated with a creationist viewpoint to
me. That is the only explanation apparent for holding views so
untethered from reality as yours. I guess no further discussion can be
helpful, nor is any explanation of the errors in your arguments
required. You simply hold them because you have been indoctrinated so
there's no use reasoning with you.

Kermit

unread,

Apr 26, 2013, 2:10:34 PM4/26/13

to

On 22 Apr, 22:18, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:46:58 AM UTC-5, solar penguin wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:40:38 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:
>

> > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial

>
> > > environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from
>
> > > physical laws.
>

> > And is it possible to model something like "falling in love"? ï¿½If not,

>
> > does that mean people can't fall in love because it's not a natural
>
> > phenomenon?
>

> > > Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952*

>
> > If we were discussing about whether oxygen or phlogiston is responsible
>
> > for fire, people would quote Lavoisier's experiment from *1774*.
>
> > If we were discussing white light as a mixture of colours, people would
>
> > quote Sir Isaac Newton's experiment from *1672*.
>
> > If we were discussing acceleration and mass, people would quote Galileo's
>
> > Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment from *1589*.
>

> > Why should the year matter? ï¿½If the experiment is good, it remains so

>
> > even after time has passed.
>
> lol. So weak.

> People quite it because at that time people truly believed that they could coax life to occur. ï¿½They thought it we could make it happen and they used Miller-Urey as their rally cry. ï¿½Then they actually found the opposite. They found in lab after lab that it was actually VERY DIFFICULT to coax life to occur.

No, they were trying to see if some chemicals necessary for life would
form under certain conditions, which they thought represented some of
the conditions seen in the young Earth. They weren't "Trying to coax
life to form."

>
> But that did not fit the PROPER POLICICAL view so everyone downplayed it and instead keep quoting an experiemnt from *1952*.

Who is everyone - us, the scientific community at large, or what? It
produced results under specified conditions which have been replicated
over and over. If one wishes to discuss those particular chemical
processes, then that would be the paper to refer to.

> ï¿½You try to play it off like it was a major accomplishment, but we actually found the OPPOSITE.

By "we" do you mean "you"?

> ï¿½But nobody can talk about it because it is not POLITICALLY CORRECT.

What are you talking about? What do hurt feelings have to do with
anything? "Politically correct" is a term used by the right wing in
the US to refer to behavior which they claim (correctly or not) that
the left wing objects to. I do not see how that sophomoric rhetoric
applies here.

>
> Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species in 1859 BEFORE we really had any understanding of cells BEFORE we really knew anything of atoms.

Yes.

>ï¿½And as we got more and more EVIDENCE that shows how hard life is to form,

You seem to be one of those folks who cannot distinguish between
abiogenesis and the evolution of the species. Evolution did not begin
until there were self-replicating organisms.

> all of Darwins Religious Fanatics

Scientists do not have religious fanatics. You are on a rant which we
have seen before, but your angry spittle is being sprayed at a straw
man.

> brushed all of the EVIDENCE under the rug and kept on with the party line.

What evidence is hidden away? Since Darwin, we have accumulated much
evidence from multiple disciplines at an increasing rate. We
understand the process he described in much greater detail than he
did, but his insight was brilliant. Millions of researchers have
continued his work for the several generations since he published.

Abiogensis is another matter. We may never know how life came about,
but there is no reason to think it was other than a natural process.

>
> It is politics all over again with the "True believers" having a religous devotion--just like humans always do in every nation in every age. ï¿½But one thing it is not: LOGICAL.

You keep saying that word...

Perhaps you could explain what data has been hidden - can you give one
example?
It would be helpful to explain why you think Darwin is important in
any discussion of abiogenesis.

Evolutionary biology - and abiogenesis research, another field - have
no holidays, no religious sites, no hymns, no doctrine. Their theories
have been modified before, and sufficient evidence could, in
principle, require dismissing the several theories altogether. Curious
religions. Calling sciences "religion" simply underscores your
ignorance of the whole process, and a risible misunderstanding of the
scientific process.

kermit

RAM

unread,

Apr 26, 2013, 6:44:29 PM4/26/13

to

On Apr 19, 9:07�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 19, 2:40 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>
> > <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >On Apr 18, 1:52 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:48:14 -0700 (PDT), Robert Camp
>
> > >> <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >> >On Apr 17, 2:35 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > >> >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:28:44 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> > >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > >> >> >On Apr 16, 6:13 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> > >> >> >> wrote:
>

> > >> >> >> >On Apr 14, 9:40 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from physical laws.
> > >> >> >> >> So all we have to do is find this primordial soup , plug it into a physics simulation and we should see the origin of living cells being built before our eyes. That s what they thought was going to happen after the Miller Urey experiment in *1952*. But that is not what they actually did find. They found that the pieces don t just snap right together. In fact, it is very hard to get the pieces to snap together. That s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952* even when all the evidence shows that all the Darwin s horses and all Dawkins men can t make a living cell from scratch again.
> > >> >> >> >> Abiogenesis is based on sheer speculation, has no evidence to support it, an abundance of counter evidence to refute it yet they **IMPLICITLY** accept/market it as truth. Check the science channel, they don t even entertain the possibility that it could be untrue even though there is no evidence at all to support it. Yet they call it science. LOL. It s like living in the twilight zone and everyone is brainwashed. Thank logic for computers at least we can count on them to be logical.

>
> > >> >> >> >Regarding a model for the origin of Darwinian evolution you may read
> > >> >> >> >my paper at the following link:
> > >> >> >> >www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/6/3445/pdf
> > >> >> >> >Looking forward to your comments.
>
> > >> >> >> I would first take issue with your idea that life is "impossible to
> > >> >> >> define" and therefore is "not a scientific but a metaphysical
> > >> >> >> concept".
>
> > >> >> >One problem is that there is a big gray area between what everyone
> > >> >> >would acknowledge to be "life" and what everyone would acknowledge to

> > >> >> >be "non-life". Where do viruses or viroids fit in, for instance?

>
> > >> >> >> If life is thus, then what of non-life, i.e. matter?
>

> > >> >> >Whoa! Don't you think living things are made of matter?

No it was foot in mouth.

sourceco...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 27, 2013, 12:07:54 AM4/27/13

to

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:12:24 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

> On Apr 25, 9:44ï¿½am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:42:59 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>

> > > On Apr 23, 12:18ï¿½pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:46:58 AM UTC-5, solar penguin wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:40:38 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:
>
> >
>

> > > > > > Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. ï¿½Given a set of initial

>
> >
>
> > > > > > environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from
>
> >
>
> > > > > > physical laws.
>
> >
>

> > > > > And is it possible to model something like "falling in love"? ï¿½If not,

>
> >
>
> > > > > does that mean people can't fall in love because it's not a natural
>
> >
>
> > > > > phenomenon?
>
> >
>

> > > > > > Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952*

>
> >
>
> > > > > If we were discussing about whether oxygen or phlogiston is responsible
>
> >
>
> > > > > for fire, people would quote Lavoisier's experiment from *1774*.
>
> >
>
> > > > > If we were discussing white light as a mixture of colours, people would
>
> >
>
> > > > > quote Sir Isaac Newton's experiment from *1672*.
>
> >
>
> > > > > If we were discussing acceleration and mass, people would quote Galileo's
>
> >
>
> > > > > Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment from *1589*.
>
> >
>

> > > > > Why should the year matter? ï¿½If the experiment is good, it remains so

>
> >
>
> > > > > even after time has passed.
>
> >
>
> > > > lol. So weak.
>
> >
>

> > > > People quite it because at that time people truly believed that they could coax life to occur. ï¿½They thought it we could make it happen and they used Miller-Urey as their rally cry. ï¿½Then they actually found the opposite. They found in lab after lab that it was actually VERY DIFFICULT to coax life to occur.
>
> >
>
> > > > But that did not fit the PROPER POLICICAL view so everyone downplayed it and instead keep quoting an experiemnt from *1952*. ï¿½You try to play it off like it was a major accomplishment, but we actually found the OPPOSITE. ï¿½But nobody can talk about it because it is not POLITICALLY CORRECT.
>
> >
>
> > > > Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species in 1859 BEFORE we really had any understanding of cells BEFORE we really knew anything of atoms. ï¿½And as we got more and more EVIDENCE that shows how hard life is to form, all of Darwins Religious Fanatics brushed all of the EVIDENCE under the rug and kept on with the party line.
>
> >
>
> > > > It is politics all over again with the "True believers" having a religous devotion--just like humans always do in every nation in every age. ï¿½But one thing it is not: LOGICAL.

>
> >
>
> > > When you started posting here, you made the claim that you were
>
> >
>
> > > religiously neutral, had not been indoctrinated in any way, and argued
>
> >
>
> > > purely from a disinterested, logical point of view. I'm perfectly
>
> >
>
> > > happy to take those claims at face value. In spite of the fact that
>
> >
>
> > > your arguments bear a striking resemblance to those frequently offered
>
> >
>
> > > by creationists with a doctrinaire, religious commitment to finding
>
> >
>
> > > design in biology and denying the science of evolution. But that's
>
> >
>
> > > fine. I've been happy to deal with your arguments on their own terms.
>
> >
>
> > > You should show the same courtesy to others here. Deal with their
>
> >
>
> > > arguments as arguments on their own terms instead of trying to wave
>
> >
>
> > > them away as just examples of politically correct indoctrination.
>
> >
>
> > You seem to keep regarding my use of the word "indoctrination" as some sort of cop-out rather than a valid point, if not THE valid point.
>
> >
>

> > For a momement, put all other issues aside and assume, for the sake of arguement, that you have been indoctrinated into your belief system. ï¿½I know you don't believe this but just pretend it is true to follow my next point. ï¿½IF it is true, THEN it becomes the dominate issue, since no other reasoning even matters in such a case.
>
> >
>
> > Now I know we disagree on that point, but at least realize that I'm not simply "waving people off" who do not agree with me. ï¿½I am making (IMO) an honest evaluation of the facts and determining that indoctrination is most valid explaination. ï¿½It IS a valid point and THE most valid point.
>
> >
>
> > Note that my evalutation is solidly based on human Mythology, Religion and the content of people's responses. ï¿½I you disagree about the existance of this indoctrination but I hope you can at least see that it is not a "cop out" but a valid point as seen from my point of view.

>
>
>
> Well, you seem entirely indoctrinated with a creationist viewpoint to
>
> me. That is the only explanation apparent for holding views so
>
> untethered from reality as yours. I guess no further discussion can be
>
> helpful, nor is any explanation of the errors in your arguments
>
> required. You simply hold them because you have been indoctrinated so
>
> there's no use reasoning with you.

Notice that you did not address my point. Again.
Notice that I have and do consider that it may be me who is indoctrinated yet you simply cannot, even for the sake of argument, even CONSIDER that you are the one who is indoctrinated. Exactly the same as religion. Not even possible to look at it from the opposing point of view just keep pushing the party line. Same as religion.

sourceco...@yahoo.com

unread,

Apr 27, 2013, 12:15:46 AM4/27/13

to

lol you people are the exact same as religious fanatics but and don't even see it....what a joke and waste of time trying to use logic with people who have been so obviously and completely brainwashed since childhood. And none of you can see it ... so truly hilarious.

alias Ernest Major

unread,

Apr 27, 2013, 5:25:09 AM4/27/13

to

On 27/04/2013 05:07, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:12:24 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

>> On Apr 25, 9:44 am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:42:59 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>

>>>> On Apr 23, 12:18 pm, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:46:58 AM UTC-5, solar penguin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:40:38 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>>>> Crystals and caverns can be and are modeled. Given a set of initial

>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> environmental conditions , natural phenomenon can be modeled from
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> physical laws.
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>>> And is it possible to model something like "falling in love"? If not,

>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> does that mean people can't fall in love because it's not a natural
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> phenomenon?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Thatï¿½s why people are still quoting an experiment from *1952*
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> If we were discussing about whether oxygen or phlogiston is responsible
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> for fire, people would quote Lavoisier's experiment from *1774*.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> If we were discussing white light as a mixture of colours, people would
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> quote Sir Isaac Newton's experiment from *1672*.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> If we were discussing acceleration and mass, people would quote Galileo's
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment from *1589*.
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>>> Why should the year matter? If the experiment is good, it remains so

>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>> even after time has passed.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> lol. So weak.
>>
>>>
>>

>>>>> People quite it because at that time people truly believed that they could coax life to occur. They thought it we could make it happen and they used Miller-Urey as their rally cry. Then they actually found the opposite. They found in lab after lab that it was actually VERY DIFFICULT to coax life to occur.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> But that did not fit the PROPER POLICICAL view so everyone downplayed it and instead keep quoting an experiemnt from *1952*. You try to play it off like it was a major accomplishment, but we actually found the OPPOSITE. But nobody can talk about it because it is not POLITICALLY CORRECT.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species in 1859 BEFORE we really had any understanding of cells BEFORE we really knew anything of atoms. And as we got more and more EVIDENCE that shows how hard life is to form, all of Darwins Religious Fanatics brushed all of the EVIDENCE under the rug and kept on with the party line.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> It is politics all over again with the "True believers" having a religous devotion--just like humans always do in every nation in every age. But one thing it is not: LOGICAL.

>>
>>>
>>
>>>> When you started posting here, you made the claim that you were
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> religiously neutral, had not been indoctrinated in any way, and argued
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> purely from a disinterested, logical point of view. I'm perfectly
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> happy to take those claims at face value. In spite of the fact that
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> your arguments bear a striking resemblance to those frequently offered
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> by creationists with a doctrinaire, religious commitment to finding
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> design in biology and denying the science of evolution. But that's
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> fine. I've been happy to deal with your arguments on their own terms.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> You should show the same courtesy to others here. Deal with their
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> arguments as arguments on their own terms instead of trying to wave
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> them away as just examples of politically correct indoctrination.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You seem to keep regarding my use of the word "indoctrination" as some sort of cop-out rather than a valid point, if not THE valid point.
>>
>>>
>>

>>> For a momement, put all other issues aside and assume, for the sake of arguement, that you have been indoctrinated into your belief system. I know you don't believe this but just pretend it is true to follow my next point. IF it is true, THEN it becomes the dominate issue, since no other reasoning even matters in such a case.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Now I know we disagree on that point, but at least realize that I'm not simply "waving people off" who do not agree with me. I am making (IMO) an honest evaluation of the facts and determining that indoctrination is most valid explaination. It IS a valid point and THE most valid point.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Note that my evalutation is solidly based on human Mythology, Religion and the content of people's responses. I you disagree about the existance of this indoctrination but I hope you can at least see that it is not a "cop out" but a valid point as seen from my point of view.

>>
>>
>>
>> Well, you seem entirely indoctrinated with a creationist viewpoint to
>>
>> me. That is the only explanation apparent for holding views so
>>
>> untethered from reality as yours. I guess no further discussion can be
>>
>> helpful, nor is any explanation of the errors in your arguments
>>
>> required. You simply hold them because you have been indoctrinated so
>>
>> there's no use reasoning with you.
>
> Notice that you did not address my point. Again.
> Notice that I have and do consider that it may be me who is indoctrinated yet you simply cannot, even for the sake of argument, even CONSIDER that you are the one who is indoctrinated. Exactly the same as religion. Not even possible to look at it from the opposing point of view just keep pushing the party line. Same as religion.
>
>

Accusing people of being indoctrinated is not an acceptable substitute
for presenting an argument.

--
alias Ernest Major

jillery

unread,

Apr 27, 2013, 5:45:47 AM4/27/13

to

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:15:46 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>lol you people are the exact same as religious fanatics but and don't even see it....what a joke and waste of time trying to use logic with people who have been so obviously and completely brainwashed since childhood. And none of you can see it ... so truly hilarious.

It's your statements like the above which contradicts your statements
like below:

Bill

unread,

Apr 27, 2013, 7:41:55 AM4/27/13

to

> Notice that you did not address my point. ï¿½Again.
> Notice that I have and do consider that it may be me who is indoctrinated yet you simply cannot, even for the sake of argument, even CONSIDER that you are the one who is indoctrinated. ï¿½Exactly the same as religion. ï¿½Not even possible to look at it from the opposing point of view just keep pushing the party line. ï¿½Same as religion.

When we started here, I didn't worry about anyone being indoctrinated,
I simply addressed your arguments on their merits. Anyone who wants to
review the thread can see the quality of your arguments and decide for
themselves whether they are convincing. You, however, when you found
that your arguments were non-convincing to your opponents just gave up
trying to refine them or to understand your opponents arguments, and
simply fell back on the claim that anyone who failed to see that you
were right must be indoctrinated. That's a cop-out.

But now that you've brought up indoctrination, your own arguments are
identical to those of creationists with an unswerving religious
commitment to seeing design in nature. The simplest explanation for
your arguments then, is just that you are indoctrinated, and
indoctrinated so deeply that you cannot even see it yourself. I
wouldn't have thought of it, except that you, yourself kept talking
about indoctrination.

But, if you are willing to actively consider the possibility that you
might be wrong consider the quality of the following argument you
offered earlier

"The brain is such a clear work of genius, so far beyond the
capabilities of any known designer, that it must obviously have been
designed."

See if that arguments really seems coherent. Ask whether the only
explanation for someone rejecting that argument is indoctrination.

Or go back to the inscribed clay tablet thread and see if you really
can get from the properties of things definitely known to be designed
and manufactured to the conclusion that a frog, for example, is
designed and manufactured. I think you are too indoctrinated for it to
be worth my time to rehash these arguments, but they are there, in the
threads, showing the quality of your arguments for any to see who care
to look.

Frank J

unread,

Apr 27, 2013, 8:21:25 AM4/27/13

to

> I am pro-logic and pro-evidence and pro-reasoning. �Why do site labels matter as to reasoning? �They don't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Evasion noted.

Frank J

unread,

Apr 27, 2013, 8:22:17 AM4/27/13

to

On 23 Apr, 10:13, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

I miss the "like" feature.