my current view on evolution and emergent behavior
Dale Kelly
ruled out evolution
this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
nature of biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
clearly animals like us are not biological robots
if the soul is not a product of evolution, can we say that other things
are, like the body, or perhaps plants that have no consciousness, free
will, mind or soul and are simply animated like biological robots
we observe the details that COULD lead up to evolution, yet evolution
happens over a long time span and has NEVER been observed as a WHOLE
our bodies and plants with respect to their environment seem to be a fit
pair, leading one to believe that perhaps irreducible complexity
arguments are on track
I believe reality is a dream of God's and he and us are all players in
the dream
there is a disconnect in material reality that leads up to this
the mind does not communicate consciously with the central nervous system
to exert will over the body, should we believe in a mysterious
subconscious that we all collectively repress, or is the better answer
that this is a true hole and disconnect in material reality intended for
us to realize the disconnect and realize the illusory nature of materiall
reality
my thinking is that a dream or plan of God's would be evolutionary in
terms of the progress of the dream, biological evolution might be a part
of his plan, but if we note such intervention in some areas, noted above,
we must consider the possibility of intervention in other areas, like
biological development
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
In terms of sentience and education, we have ruled out yours.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
hhya...@gmail.com
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
>
> this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
>
> an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate onehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
Brain-twisted Kelly,
Why is it so difficult to imagine our NATURE as your god.......?
Your imagination of a god is what....? A supernatural being ....define
pls...
Your god can create any thing........then what did he need from
you...?
Your prayers.....? So he need you to carry balls......right?
If he need for his creation to carry balls, then it is obvious all of
you are just without brains and have only mechanical means to
carry.....right?
So, that's what you all are.......
Yap
Rolf
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
You do not make sense, because you are just exposing your ingnorant,
underdeveloped mind.
It is a fact that people who have devoted their lives to serious study of
the subjects that you are ranting about, depend en evolutionary theory to
make sense of their observations. You are, however, grossly ignorant about
science and therefore waht you say is pure BS of no value whatsoever. Why
don't you study the subjects you want to discuss. But wait a minute, you do
not want to discuss, you have found your holy grail and just want the rest
of us to accept your weird theories. But why should we - do you think we are
going to believe ant\ything you say because that is the way you think? You
may rule otu whateber you want, I rule you you.
[snip]
--
> Dale
> http://www.vedantasite.org
>
RaaN
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
>
> this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
>
> an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate onehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
I'd have to say that the issue has to do with the ideas of causation
and determinism and free will and chaos. If we look into our past we
can see that every decision and every action we have taken was
inevitable and is now a fixed unchangeable reality. However the
mistake made is in thinking that this means that our future is of the
same nature as our past. In fact the best idea that fits all observed
facts is that it is not. The past is actual while the future is
potential. In quantum physics a given subatomic entity is considered
a particle only when it is spatially located as a given part of the
past.. until then it is a dynamic potentiality. The problem with any
idea of time considered as a linear arrangment past to future like a
railway track is that the fact of the present moment cannot be
accounted for. In a static spatialized space-time there can be no
movement but the fact of movement even of consciousness through static
space-time refutes this. The now moment is unique and it is not the
same in nature as a given past moment now fixed in the past. Not is
it a future moment as such since the future is indeterminate. A
particle can be determined to have been anywhere without any way of
knowing where in advance. Yes an indeterminant system cannot emerge
from a determinant system. Chaos cannot come from order. However the
reverse is possible even if only in random patterns. So the usual
notion of causation with a creation in the ditance past determining
all subsequent events is only a hindsite view. In fact only this
moment now is the moment of creation. The past is created from the
future, now. The potential future is actualized into the past. As we
are conscious now we are part of that creative process utterly and
ultimately free without order or rule or law. But as the past is
created the process of creation tends to verify and validate that past
and adhere to probablistic events. More needs to be understood about
this true nature of time and origination to better comprehend the
nature of creative will. I suggest reading some Alfred North
Whitehead to find the potential underpinnings of a science based on
this undestanding of the dynamic present.
--
RaaN
Dick
If there is an Intelligence, I would expect it to progress.
Reincarnation including "life reviews" at the end of each cycle seems
likely to me. The point of the life review would be to evaluate our
performance as preparation for the next cycle.
Frank Herbert, "The Jesus Incident" has an interesting concept: The
music is determined, we improvise the dance.
Spencer 忽帕
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
| in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
| ruled out evolution
|
| this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
| nature of biology
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
|
| an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate one
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
|
| clearly animals like us are not biological robots
Clearly we *are* meat puppets.
| if the soul is not a product of evolution, can we say that other things
| are, like the body, or perhaps plants that have no consciousness, free
| will, mind or soul and are simply animated like biological robots
No soul has ever been observed. No evidence for free will has ever been
produced.
| we observe the details that COULD lead up to evolution, yet evolution
| happens over a long time span and has NEVER been observed as a WHOLE
The same applies to history but we still believe it is broadly true.
| our bodies and plants with respect to their environment seem to be a fit
| pair, leading one to believe that perhaps irreducible complexity
| arguments are on track
|
| I believe reality is a dream of God's and he and us are all players in
| the dream
How do you know it's not my dream or for that matter your's?
| there is a disconnect in material reality that leads up to this
Since material reality is all there is there is nothing to be connected to.
| the mind does not communicate consciously with the central nervous system
| to exert will over the body, should we believe in a mysterious
| subconscious that we all collectively repress, or is the better answer
| that this is a true hole and disconnect in material reality intended for
| us to realize the disconnect and realize the illusory nature of materiall
| reality
The mind is the activity of the living CNS.
| my thinking is that a dream or plan of God's would be evolutionary in
| terms of the progress of the dream, biological evolution might be a part
| of his plan, but if we note such intervention in some areas, noted above,
| we must consider the possibility of intervention in other areas, like
| biological development
Having proved to yourself that God exists you now try to second guess hir.
No intervention has been observed.
--
Conscious Evolution
jet
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
>
> this is due to the indeterminate nature of free will, and the determinate
>
> an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate one [link removed]
>
But you can have a determinate system that does a very good job of
looking like an stochastic one. So good that it is impossible to tell
the two apart. "Free will" certainly could fall into this category.
> clearly animals like us are not biological robots
>
I don't think you've passed a Turing test yet so what is this "us" you
refer to? Certainly you've not shown any evidence of creative thought.
[snip]
Inez
> ruled out evolution
Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
their eyes?
Dr. Wayne Simon
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176127968.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>GOD.
bi...@juno.com
No, the biologists can get new jobs studying layer upon layer of
biochemical complexity. And the best part is, they won't feel
compelled to come up with more and more complicated "circuitous
routes" by which IC structures supposedly evolved. (Occam's razor be
damned, say the evolutionists. We will believe anything in order to
keep our blind faith in naturalism).
With the burden of trying to shore up the crumbling theory of
evolution gone, they can get down to some serious science, uncovering
layer upon layer of biochemical complexity with glee, rather than
horror. Each successive layer of complexity will do more to confirm
ID, and relegate "random blind natural forces" to the dustbin of
history.
Time is on our side, evolutionists. With each successive layer of
complexity, ID becomes more and more certain. Your theory is dying,
and your blind rage at anyone who accepts ID is not helping.
Geoff
> On Apr 9, 7:12 am, "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I
>>> have ruled out evolution
>>
>> Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
>> guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
>> biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
>> their eyes?
>
> No, the biologists can get new jobs studying layer upon layer of
> biochemical complexity. And the best part is, they won't feel
> compelled to come up with more and more complicated "circuitous
> routes" by which IC structures supposedly evolved.
An argument from incredulity and a strawman. You win a rusty Bozo button!
> With the burden of trying to shore up the crumbling theory of
> evolution gone, they can get down to some serious science, uncovering
> layer upon layer of biochemical complexity with glee, rather than
> horror. Each successive layer of complexity will do more to confirm
> ID, and relegate "random blind natural forces" to the dustbin of
> history.
>
> Time is on our side, evolutionists. With each successive layer of
> complexity, ID becomes more and more certain. Your theory is dying,
> and your blind rage at anyone who accepts ID is not helping.
Jesus, were you jacking off when you typed this?
Inez
> On Apr 9, 7:12 am, "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> > > ruled out evolution
>
> > Oh no! The great and powerful Dale Kelly has ruled out evolution! I
> > guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
> > biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
> > their eyes?
>
> No, the biologists can get new jobs studying layer upon layer of
> biochemical complexity.
What a great idea! I bet they never study that sort of thing now.
They just throw up their hands and say "gosh, look at all those layers
of complexity. Better not study them."
> And the best part is, they won't feel
> compelled to come up with more and more complicated "circuitous
> routes" by which IC structures supposedly evolved.
Yes, why actually learn things when you can just claim God was
responsible and go for a beer. I can see their publications now:
"The New Synthesis: An Exhaustive Study of Layer Upon Layer of
Complexity"
Abstract: God did it.
Materials and Methods: We said "God did it" and went for a beer.
Results: God Made layer upon layer of complexity, then we had a beer.
Discussion: Hallelujah!
Science will rocket foward like a car piloted by a crash test dummy!
> (Occam's razor be
> damned, say the evolutionists. We will believe anything in order to
> keep our blind faith in naturalism).
Just because you don't know how God did his magic doesn't mean it was
a simple solution. In reality it was so complex that only HE can
understand it. So he is struck down but Occam's razor afterall.
<snipification>
> Time is on our side, evolutionists. With each successive layer of
> complexity, ID becomes more and more certain. Your theory is dying,
> and your blind rage at anyone who accepts ID is not helping.
OK then, write back when you have evidence.
Spencer 忽帕
"Dr. Wayne Simon" <wayne...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g_udnflv2ftb64fb...@comcast.com...
“Man is the mind of evolution becoming conscious of itself.”
As we evolve to become posthumans we become gods.
Desertphile
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
That's nice. Why should anyone care?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I may be dead, but I'm still pretty." -- Buffy
Rolf
<bi...@juno.com> skrev i melding
news:1176139434.7...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Looks like a joke to me.
Ye Old One
s/he wrote:
ID is religion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:
>in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
>ruled out evolution
That's nice. In terms of rationality on your part I have
ruled out the possibility. HANL.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
ZikZak
>
> clearly animals like us are not biological robots
>
How about a jellyfish? Is that a biological robot?
What about a sponge? a bacterium? a virus? How do you decide?
limitationsofscience
Excellent point which I agree completely.
There are conserable limitations to what science can do in the area of
evolutionary theory:
The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five
senses.
If something can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, then
science can deal with it. But to expect science to investigate
something in the proverbial "sixth sense" is to demand too much of the
scientific method, and lays it open to charges of abuse or misuse.
The scientific method is limited to the present. That science is
limited to the present should be a self-evident, axiomatic truth,
since the present is the only place and time in which the five senses
operate.
Science seeks to explain the behavior of that which is, and to check
its explanation by means of experiments. But this experimental
requirement can be met only in the present time. The past, and
especially the beginning of things, lies beyond the grasp of this
method, and so science can only speculate about the origin and history
of the world .
To require science to make factual statements about pre-history is to
prostitute the method.
Since science is based upon observation, it must limit its scope to
human history, where things can be properly observed and recorded. In
recent years, there has been considerable disagreement between
creationists and evolutionists over whether or not science should be
limited to the present. Evolutionists have insisted on using science
in an attempt to study various aspects of their theory (e.g., the Big
Bang, the origin of the Solar System, etc.) that they freely admit
belong in "pre-history." Creationists have responded by suggesting
that such events are not observable, and therefore are not properly
within the domain of science. Yet there are certain things about both
evolution and creation that can be tested. In order to distinguish the
things within each model that can be tested from those that cannot,
some authors have suggested that science itself be divided into two
categories.
operation science vs. origin science
Operation science deals with regular, recurring events in nature that
require natural causes (eclipses, volcanoes, reproduction, etc.),
while origin science deals with singularities that may or may not
require a natural cause (the Big Bang, creation, etc.). The term
"origin science" may be new, but it operates by the standard
principles of causality and uniformity. The principle of causality
says that every material effect must have a prior, necessary, and
adequate cause. The principle of uniformity (or analogy) states that
similar effects have similar causes. In other words, the kinds of
causes that we observe producing effects today can be counted on to
have produced similar effects in the past. What we see as an adequate
cause in the present, we assume to have been an adequate cause in the
past; what we see as an inadequate cause in the present, we assume to
have been an inadequate cause in the past.
The origin of the Universe, and of life itself, occurred in the
distant past under conditions not necessarily experimentally
reproducible and therefore not able to be studied in a strictly
scientific manner.
Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any
possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted
into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily
false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either
without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in
extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their
validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted as
part of training
Thus, even defenders of evolutionary theory have admitted that their
theory is "outside of empirical science." Of course, evolutionists
have responded by suggesting that "creation is based on supernatural
processes in the past" and therefore is not scientific. However, the
"supernatural" beginnings of creation are no less available for
scientific examination than are the "prehistoric" (though allegedly
natural) beginnings of evolution. To the unbiased observer, that would
seem to put creation and evolution on equal footing, scientifically
speaking.
The scientific method is limited to telling us "how" a process works,
not "why."
The scientific method is incapable of dealing with the realm of
purpose. It can deal with cause and effect relationships; or as some
would say, it can deal with the succession of events in time. It
cannot deal with the "why" when one uses the term "why" with reference
to purpose. Science deals with mechanism, not purpose. "Why"-in
regard to purpose-is not a question science is equipped to answer.
The scientific method is limited in that it is amoral (non-moral).
Science is ignorant of values. There is nothing inherent in the
scientific method that provides for the definition or study of morals.
It should be recognized that science is incapable of making value
judgments about the things it measures. Many men on the frontiers of
science are realizing that there is nothing inherent in science to
guide them in the application of the discoveries they make. There is
nothing in science itself which will determine whether nuclear energy
will be used to destroy cancer or to destroy cities. This is a
judgment outside the scientific method to determine.
This is not meant to imply that scientists work without morals or
values. It is simply to say that whatever morals or values they
possess were not derived from the scientific method. Science is not
equipped to deal with morals.
The scientific method is limited in that it cannot deal with the
unique. The scientific method deals with those things that are: (a)
timeless; (b) universal; (c) dependable; and (d) repeatable. Those
things that do not fit in these categories are outside the realm of
science.
One-time events on earth are outside of science. The core of
scientific method or methods is experimental repeatability or
reproducibility. The important distinction between science and those
other systematizations (the arts, philosophy, and theology) is that
science is self-testing and self-correcting. The testing and
correcting are done by means of observations that can be repeated with
essentially the same results by normal persons operating by the same
methods and with the same approach.
This explains the limits of evolution as a science. Evolution can be
used as science in some areas. In other areas it is pseudoscience. In
general it is just the stinky garbage of last night's party before the
cleaning people have arrived.
limitationofscience
Spencer 忽帕
"limitationsofscience" <limitatio...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176159402....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Let me stop you there. The notion of 5 senses is not a scientific one.
There is the sense of where parts of the body are, proprioception I think.
We also lump together about half a dozen separate senses under "touch". For
example heat and cold, pressure, light touch and pain: all separate senses.
--
Spencer
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
Dale Kelly
> How about a jellyfish? Is that a biological robot?
>
> What about a sponge? a bacterium? a virus? How do you decide?--
if it exhibits free will, consciousness or a mind
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Sean Carroll
> Let me stop you there. The notion of 5 senses is not a scientific one.
> There is the sense of where parts of the body are, proprioception I think.
> We also lump together about half a dozen separate senses under "touch". For
> example heat and cold, pressure, light touch and pain: all separate senses.
The American Museum of Natural History has an exhibit that recognises
six senses: the traditional five, plus balance.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'I ask you, is almost dying any excuse for not being fun?' --Dr Gregory
House
John Wilkins
> Spencer ©¿©¬ wrote:
>
> > Let me stop you there. The notion of 5 senses is not a scientific one.
> > There is the sense of where parts of the body are, proprioception I think.
> > We also lump together about half a dozen separate senses under "touch". For
> > example heat and cold, pressure, light touch and pain: all separate senses.
>
> The American Museum of Natural History has an exhibit that recognises
> six senses: the traditional five, plus balance.
Proprioception (the sensing of where your body parts are in relation to
the other parts)?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Bodega
<limitationofscie...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
An amazing arkload of crap.
If one comes across an old Indian graveyard, the bones and artifacts
there don't actually exist because there is no written record of
anyone there actually dying.
The sun cannot actually exist because no one has produced a sun in a
laboratory.
The Earth does not exist because there was no one there taking notes.
Mark VandeWettering
On 2007-04-09, Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
Well, that's nice. But can you tell us why any of us should care?
Mark
Navillus
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
>
>
> an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate onehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
When discussing the "determinate" nature of the universe, the first
thing that pops into my mind is: "the uncertainty principle is a bitch"
limitationsofscience
> Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Spencer ŠżŠŹ wrote:
>
> > > Let me stop you there. The notion of 5 senses is not a scientific one.
> > > There is the sense of where parts of the body are, proprioception I think.
> > > We also lump together about half a dozen separate senses under "touch". For
> > > example heat and cold, pressure, light touch and pain: all separate senses.
Yes you are correct in that there are different nerve receptors which
allow the differing forms of touch sensation.
Touch however is considered one of the five senses.
SIght can be subcategorized into rods and cones, motion
sensitivityetc.
Hearing can be subcategorized into sound frequencies, musical tonal
abiltity etc.
Taste can be subcatgorized into sour, sweet, bitter etc.
>
> > The American Museum of Natural History has an exhibit that recognises
> > six senses: the traditional five, plus balance.
>
> Proprioception (the sensing of where your body parts are in relation to
> the other parts)?
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
> bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Balance is actually a form of touch sensation from the hair cells in
the semicircular canals which detect fluid shifts as the head moves.
The senses are traditionally considered to be five in number while the
6th sense is considered supernatural.
Anybody have a 6th sense? Speak up !!!!
limitationofscience
Spencer 忽帕
"Navillus" <cwsul...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:1176191514.6...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
So does it follow that female dogs are less predictable than male ones, and
can we then go on to deduce that women are more fickle than men.
My personal observations seem to show that women are extemely unpredictable,
and change their minds for no apparent reason. In fact logic and reason fail
when applied to human female behaviour.
Throwback
<limitationofscie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The origin of the Universe, and of life itself, occurred in the
> distant past under conditions not necessarily experimentally
> reproducible and therefore not able to be studied in a strictly
> scientific manner.
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html
Of interest is the claim that life was of extraterrestrial origin:
"On September 28, 1969, the Murchison meteorite that fell near
Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different
amino acids, 19 of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy
outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of
complex carbon compounds formed by these processes. The early Earth
was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of
complex organic molecules. This could imply an origin of life outside
of Earth, which then migrated here."
The gods of Kobol must be pleased ...
Throwback
> An amazing arkload of crap.
>
> If one comes across an old Indian graveyard, the bones and artifacts
> there don't actually exist because there is no written record of
> anyone there actually dying.
But if there was a written record, written by <insert nym here>,
there would be no reason to state that it wasn't written by
<insert nym here>.
> The sun cannot actually exist because no one has produced a sun in a
> laboratory.
Thermonuclear devices?
Throwback
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
"What about the even balance of L and D (left and right oriented)
amino acids seen in your experiment, unlike the preponderance of L
seen in nature?
All of these pre-biotic experiments yield a racemic mixture, that is,
equal amounts of D and L forms of the compounds. Indeed, if you're
results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination. The
question is how did one form get selected. In my opinion, the
selection comes close to or slightly after the origin of life. There
is no way in my opinion that you are going to sort out the D and L
amino acids in separate pools. My opinion or working hypothesis is
that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
carbon "
Perplexing.
John Wilkins
At best it indicates amino acids could have been produced outside of
earth. I rather doubt they were in anything living when they arrived.
>
> The gods of Kobol must be pleased ...
Ye Old One
Why?
>
>The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five
>senses.
Sorry, but the number of sense depends on how you define them.
>
>If something can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, then
>science can deal with it. But to expect science to investigate
>something in the proverbial "sixth sense" is to demand too much of the
>scientific method, and lays it open to charges of abuse or misuse.
Depends on what you call this sixth sense.
>
>The scientific method is limited to the present.
Whatever gave you that idea?
> That science is
>limited to the present should be a self-evident, axiomatic truth,
>since the present is the only place and time in which the five senses
>operate.
What rubbish. I've heard the voices of people long dead. I've seen
them move, and sing, laugh and cry.
>
>Science seeks to explain the behavior of that which is, and to check
>its explanation by means of experiments. But this experimental
>requirement can be met only in the present time. The past, and
>especially the beginning of things, lies beyond the grasp of this
>method, and so science can only speculate about the origin and history
>of the world .
Rubbish.
>To require science to make factual statements about pre-history is to
>prostitute the method.
Science can go back over 13 billion years.
>
>Since science is based upon observation, it must limit its scope to
>human history,
Rubbish. You do have some stupid ideas.
> where things can be properly observed and recorded. In
>recent years, there has been considerable disagreement between
>creationists and evolutionists over whether or not science should be
>limited to the present.
And creationists, as they always do, lost.
> Evolutionists have insisted on using science
>in an attempt to study various aspects of their theory (e.g., the Big
>Bang, the origin of the Solar System, etc.)
None of those have anything to do with the ToE.
> that they freely admit
>belong in "pre-history." Creationists have responded by suggesting
>that such events are not observable, and therefore are not properly
>within the domain of science.
And, as they always do, creationists lost.
> Yet there are certain things about both
>evolution and creation that can be tested.
Creationism can not be tested until it finds some evidence.
> In order to distinguish the
>things within each model that can be tested from those that cannot,
>some authors have suggested that science itself be divided into two
>categories.
>
>operation science vs. origin science
Science is science.
>
>Operation science deals with regular, recurring events in nature that
>require natural causes (eclipses, volcanoes, reproduction, etc.),
>while origin science deals with singularities that may or may not
>require a natural cause (the Big Bang, creation, etc.). The term
>"origin science" may be new, but it operates by the standard
>principles of causality and uniformity. The principle of causality
>says that every material effect must have a prior, necessary, and
>adequate cause. The principle of uniformity (or analogy) states that
>similar effects have similar causes. In other words, the kinds of
>causes that we observe producing effects today can be counted on to
>have produced similar effects in the past. What we see as an adequate
>cause in the present, we assume to have been an adequate cause in the
>past; what we see as an inadequate cause in the present, we assume to
>have been an inadequate cause in the past.
>
>The origin of the Universe, and of life itself, occurred in the
>distant past under conditions not necessarily experimentally
>reproducible and therefore not able to be studied in a strictly
>scientific manner.
Science does a very good job and does not recognize your limitations.
>
>Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any
>possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted
>into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily
>false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either
>without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in
>extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their
>validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted as
>part of training
I'm sure you meant that to be sensible - but it wasn't.
>
>Thus, even defenders of evolutionary theory have admitted that their
>theory is "outside of empirical science."
Where? When? Who?
>Of course, evolutionists
>have responded by suggesting that "creation is based on supernatural
>processes in the past" and therefore is not scientific. However, the
>"supernatural" beginnings of creation are no less available for
>scientific examination than are the "prehistoric" (though allegedly
>natural) beginnings of evolution.
Ah! But we do have a mountain of evidence in support of evolution.
What evidence does creationism have? None.
>To the unbiased observer, that would
>seem to put creation and evolution on equal footing, scientifically
>speaking.
Creation isn't science.
>
>The scientific method is limited to telling us "how" a process works,
>not "why."
>
>The scientific method is incapable of dealing with the realm of
>purpose. It can deal with cause and effect relationships; or as some
>would say, it can deal with the succession of events in time. It
>cannot deal with the "why" when one uses the term "why" with reference
>to purpose. Science deals with mechanism, not purpose. "Why"-in
>regard to purpose-is not a question science is equipped to answer.
>
>The scientific method is limited in that it is amoral (non-moral).
>
>Science is ignorant of values. There is nothing inherent in the
>scientific method that provides for the definition or study of morals.
>It should be recognized that science is incapable of making value
>judgments about the things it measures. Many men on the frontiers of
>science are realizing that there is nothing inherent in science to
>guide them in the application of the discoveries they make. There is
>nothing in science itself which will determine whether nuclear energy
>will be used to destroy cancer or to destroy cities. This is a
>judgment outside the scientific method to determine.
So?
>
>This is not meant to imply that scientists work without morals or
>values. It is simply to say that whatever morals or values they
>possess were not derived from the scientific method. Science is not
>equipped to deal with morals.
>The scientific method is limited in that it cannot deal with the
>unique. The scientific method deals with those things that are: (a)
>timeless; (b) universal; (c) dependable; and (d) repeatable. Those
>things that do not fit in these categories are outside the realm of
>science.
>
>One-time events on earth are outside of science.
Rubbish.
> The core of
>scientific method or methods is experimental repeatability or
>reproducibility.
No. The core is evidence.
> The important distinction between science and those
>other systematizations (the arts, philosophy, and theology) is that
>science is self-testing and self-correcting. The testing and
>correcting are done by means of observations that can be repeated with
>essentially the same results by normal persons operating by the same
>methods and with the same approach.
>
>This explains the limits of evolution as a science. Evolution can be
>used as science in some areas. In other areas it is pseudoscience. In
>general it is just the stinky garbage of last night's party before the
>cleaning people have arrived.
Evolution is science. Good science.
>
>limitationofscience
Now all we have to do is find the limitation of your ignorance. I feel
we still have a long way to go.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<limitatio...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 9, 9:53 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Spencer ŠżŠŹ wrote:
>>
>> > > Let me stop you there. The notion of 5 senses is not a scientific one.
>> > > There is the sense of where parts of the body are, proprioception I think.
>> > > We also lump together about half a dozen separate senses under "touch". For
>> > > example heat and cold, pressure, light touch and pain: all separate senses.
>
>Yes you are correct in that there are different nerve receptors which
>allow the differing forms of touch sensation.
>Touch however is considered one of the five senses.
That does depend on which definition of "the senses" you want to use.
>
>SIght can be subcategorized into rods and cones, motion
>sensitivityetc.
>
>Hearing can be subcategorized into sound frequencies, musical tonal
>abiltity etc.
>
>Taste can be subcatgorized into sour, sweet, bitter etc.
>
>>
>> > The American Museum of Natural History has an exhibit that recognises
>> > six senses: the traditional five, plus balance.
>>
>> Proprioception (the sensing of where your body parts are in relation to
>> the other parts)?
>> --
>> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
>> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
>> "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
>> bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
>
>Balance is actually a form of touch sensation from the hair cells in
>the semicircular canals which detect fluid shifts as the head moves.
There is more to it than that, vision plays a part for starters.
>
>The senses are traditionally considered to be five in number while the
>6th sense is considered supernatural.
>
>Anybody have a 6th sense? Speak up !!!!
>
>limitationofscience
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:41:22 -0700, ZikZak wrote:
>
>> How about a jellyfish? Is that a biological robot?
>>
>> What about a sponge? a bacterium? a virus? How do you decide?--
>
>
>if it exhibits free will, consciousness or a mind
And how do you measure this?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "limitationsofscience"
<limitatio...@gmail.com>:
<snip>
>The senses are traditionally considered to be five in number while the
>6th sense is considered supernatural.
Fine, so long as you realize this is a popular conception,
not a postulate of science.
>Anybody have a 6th sense? Speak up !!!!
I can tell when whackos post to t.o. Does than count?
Mark Isaak
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:41:22 -0700, ZikZak wrote:
>
>> How about a jellyfish? Is that a biological robot?
>>
>> What about a sponge? a bacterium? a virus? How do you decide?--
>
> if it exhibits free will, consciousness or a mind
Why mind? Robots have minds.
And I can say with confidence that sponges, bacteria, and viruses do not
exhibit free will or consciousness. Neither to you or I.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Spencer 忽帕
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:lu3o139648tgq3n3t...@4ax.com...
| On 10 Apr 2007 04:52:03 -0700, the following appeared in
| talk.origins, posted by "limitationsofscience"
| <limitatio...@gmail.com>:
|
| <snip>
|
| >The senses are traditionally considered to be five in number while the
| >6th sense is considered supernatural.
|
| Fine, so long as you realize this is a popular conception,
| not a postulate of science.
|
| >Anybody have a 6th sense? Speak up !!!!
|
| I can tell when whackos post to t.o. Does than count?
No because this thread is x-posted to
talk.origins,alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology
so you don't know where the kooks are coming from.
--
Forteans never prove anything; we just weigh up the evidence on the scales
in our eyes.
limitationsofscience
> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>
> news:lu3o139648tgq3n3t...@4ax.com...
> | On 10 Apr 2007 04:52:03 -0700, the following appeared in
> | talk.origins, posted by "limitationsofscience"
> |
> | <snip>
> |
> | >The senses are traditionally considered to be five in number while the
> | >6th sense is considered supernatural.
> |
> | Fine, so long as you realize this is a popular conception,
> | not a postulate of science.
> |
> | >Anybody have a 6th sense? Speak up !!!!
> |
> | I can tell when whackos post to t.o. Does than count?
>
> No because this thread is x-posted to
> talk.origins,alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology
>
> so you don't know where the kooks are coming from.
>
> --
>
> Forteans never prove anything; we just weigh up the evidence on the scales
> in our eyes.
You can implant a magnet in your finger and get a 6th sense:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07/implanting_a_magnet_.html
limitationsofscience
John Wilkins
> On 10 Apr 2007 04:52:03 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "limitationsofscience"
> <limitatio...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
> >The senses are traditionally considered to be five in number while the
> >6th sense is considered supernatural.
>
> Fine, so long as you realize this is a popular conception,
> not a postulate of science.
>
> >Anybody have a 6th sense? Speak up !!!!
>
> I can tell when whackos post to t.o. Does than count?
I'm ready to tell you my secret now. I see dumb people.
Spencer 忽帕
| On Apr 10, 8:29 pm, "Spencer 忽帕" <q...@supahat.com> wrote:
| > "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
| >
| > news:lu3o139648tgq3n3t...@4ax.com...
| > | On 10 Apr 2007 04:52:03 -0700, the following appeared in
| > | talk.origins, posted by "limitationsofscience"
| > | <limitationofscie...@gmail.com>:
| > |
| > | <snip>
|
| http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07/implanting_a_magnet_.html
This site was started by Cory Doctorow who wrote a great story for Salon.com
called Ownerzed I think.
This is hackerspeak for "What if we could completely control our own bodies
including the biochemistry?"
After reading this I bought a couple of his SF books but was disappointed as
none of his other ideas were as good. I was hoping he was the new Wm. Gibson
or Bruce Stirling beginning a new wave of SF like the Cyberberpunk wave off
the 1980s. Unfortunately there is very little new SF worth reading these
days as science fact seems to outstrip the imaginations of writers.
--
Spencer
Death needs Time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's sweet sake you
stupid, vulgar, greedy, Ugly-American Death Sucker!
William S. Burroughs
David Iain Greig
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
In terms of actual sanity, the universe has ruled out Dale Kelly.
--D.
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
Throwback
> http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
>
> "What about the even balance of L and D (left and right oriented)
> amino acids seen in your experiment, unlike the preponderance of L
> seen in nature?
>
> All of these pre-biotic experiments yield a racemic mixture, that is,
> equal amounts of D and L forms of the compounds. Indeed, if you're
> results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination. The
> question is how did one form get selected. In my opinion, the
> selection comes close to or slightly after the origin of life. There
> is no way in my opinion that you are going to sort out the D and L
> amino acids in separate pools. My opinion or working hypothesis is
> that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
> carbon "
>
> Perplexing.
Ok, so did the flying spaghetti monster make
all amino acids levorotary?
Spencer 忽帕
"David Iain Greig" <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote in message
news:cabal-slrnf1pq...@darwin.ediacara.org...
| Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
| > in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
| > ruled out evolution
|
| In terms of actual sanity, the universe has ruled out Dale Kelly.
| david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
| sp4 kox
| http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
"...am self-incorporated." Where did you find the " self " to incorporate?
As the moderator of talk.origins why do you allow x-posting from unmoderated
groups such as the one I'm posting from in the alt. heirarchy?
--
"Peace through superior firepower."
Sean Carroll
> Balance is actually a form of touch sensation from the hair cells in
> the semicircular canals which detect fluid shifts as the head moves.
Right -- semicircular canals, not cochlea. Oops.
But I would argue against considering it a form of 'touch'. All those
other forms of touch -- temperature, pressure, pain, all that -- do
indeed all 'feel' like part of the same sense. The organ of sensation
for all of them is the skin.
But balance doesn't 'feel' like a touch. Yes, it ultimately comes from
the triggering of hairs by things that 'touch' them. But ultimately
*all* senses come from the same mechanism -- the triggering of nerves
following the application of a stimulus to them. Optical nerves,
auditory nerves, lingual nerves, olfactory nerves -- they all operate by
being 'touched' the same way as the nerves of balance. But that doesn't
make them all forms of 'touch', because the organs of sensation are not
the skin -- they're the eyes, ears, tongue, and nose. In the same
manner, balance is not sensed through the skin -- it's sensed through
the inner ear. (It's not a form of hearing, either, though, because the
mechanism is separate from the one that detects sound.)
I think the case is damn good for separating balance out as a true sixth
sense, as the AMNH has done. Maybe it could be lumped together with
proprioception -- I'm not sure. But I definitely think it would be
artificial to continue considering it a form of 'touch' -- the only
reason to continue to do so is to preserve the 'traditional' five-sense
count because of its *cultural*, not scientific, value.
When I feel temperature, pressure, pain, and so forth, I always have a
'sense' that they're all different stimuli of the same sense -- I
'touch' them, through my skin, and the neural pathways 'feel' closely
related. But balance does not 'feel' like touch to me. It feels like
exactly what it is: a sensation of the local gravitational field whose
organ of sense is the inner ear.
When I spin around, the currents I make in my inner ear disrupt my sense
of balance, and I get dizzy -- but I don't 'feel' the dizziness against
my skin like I feel temperature, pressure, or pain. I 'feel' it in my
inner ear, just as I 'feel' smells in my nose, light in my eyes, sound
in my eardrum, and taste on my tongue.
Until recently Pluto was still considered a planet, because 'tradition'
maintained that there were nine planets. Originally, that tradition was
reasonable, given what we knew. But it eventually became quite clear
that there was no scientific justification for it; Pluto is better
classified as a 'Kuiper belt object', because there are many other ones
that share the same properties, and they're all very different from the
four terrestrial and four gas-giant planets. Now, we lump Kuiper belt
objects together with large asteroids as 'minor planets', a category
that makes much more objective sense. If we can finally admit that there
were 'nine planets' for so long purely because of tradition, and move
Pluto to the category it belongs in, why can't we admit that there have
also always been 'five senses' purely because of tradition, and separate
balance out from the other forms of touch it is not in fact really
connected to?
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'I'm not a baby expert, but I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to
shrink.' --Dr Gregory House
David Iain Greig
>
> "David Iain Greig" <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote in message
> news:cabal-slrnf1pq...@darwin.ediacara.org...
>| Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>| > in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
>| > ruled out evolution
>|
>| In terms of actual sanity, the universe has ruled out Dale Kelly.
>
Under three ch'in of flax.
> As the moderator of talk.origins why do you allow x-posting from unmoderated
> groups such as the one I'm posting from in the alt. heirarchy?
The waters move swiftly, but the little fish stay still.
--D.
ML
> 'I'm not a baby expert, but I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to
> shrink.' --Dr Gregory House
In the great state of New Mexico, Pluto is still a planet.
It is cool they did that.
I LIKE that in a state.
Josh Hayes
> Spencer 忽帕 <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
>
>> As the moderator of talk.origins why do you allow x-posting from
>> unmoderated groups such as the one I'm posting from in the alt.
>> heirarchy?
>
> The waters move swiftly, but the little fish stay still.
And Spencer heard, but was not enlightened.
-JAH
Sean Carroll
> Sean Carroll <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Spencer 忽帕 wrote:
>>>Let me stop you there. The notion of 5 senses is not a scientific one.
>>>There is the sense of where parts of the body are, proprioception I think.
>>>We also lump together about half a dozen separate senses under "touch". For
>>>example heat and cold, pressure, light touch and pain: all separate senses.
>>The American Museum of Natural History has an exhibit that recognises
>>six senses: the traditional five, plus balance.
> Proprioception (the sensing of where your body parts are in relation to
> the other parts)?
No, I don't think that's what they meant. They were referring to the
function of the cochlea in the inner ear: essentially, a sense of which
direction the gravitational field is pointing. They still counted all
the kinds of 'touch' as one sense.
--
--Sean
Spencer 忽帕
"Sean Carroll" <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bX9Th.36424$EJ6....@newsfe24.lga...
No. Proprioception doesn't feel like anything, certainly not like loss of
balance when you lose it.
I person who loses the sense of proprioception has to look to see where hir
arms and legs are.
The sense organs are in the joints but we are unaware of them.
The most basic sense is taste - the chemical sense. Even single celled
organisms have this. No nervous system or brain is required. Smell is pretty
much the same as chemicals are dissolved in the wet nasal menbranes and then
"tasted". Plants have many senses but no sensorium. I wonder why Buddhists
classify organisms into sentient and non sentient beings.
In practice they don't and I saw many ordained trees in Thailand. A piece of
saffron cloth is fastened around the trunk and the tree is then treated with
the same respect as any other monk.
This is very usefull for conservation of urban trees and forests. To save a
tree you don't need to live in it: just ask the local abbot to ordain it.
"I fought the Dharma, and the Dharma won." (Allen Ginsberg)
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Spencer 忽帕"
<qs...@supahat.com>:
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:lu3o139648tgq3n3t...@4ax.com...
>| On 10 Apr 2007 04:52:03 -0700, the following appeared in
>| talk.origins, posted by "limitationsofscience"
>| <limitatio...@gmail.com>:
>|
>| <snip>
>|
>| >The senses are traditionally considered to be five in number while the
>| >6th sense is considered supernatural.
>|
>| Fine, so long as you realize this is a popular conception,
>| not a postulate of science.
>|
>| >Anybody have a 6th sense? Speak up !!!!
>|
>| I can tell when whackos post to t.o. Does than count?
>
>No because this thread is x-posted to
>talk.origins,alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.philosophy,sci.med.psychobiology
>
>so you don't know where the kooks are coming from.
True, but that doesn't change the fact they they're posting
to t.o; I didn't exclude crossposts. ;-)
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
Wilkins):
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Apr 2007 04:52:03 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "limitationsofscience"
>> <limitatio...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >The senses are traditionally considered to be five in number while the
>> >6th sense is considered supernatural.
>>
>> Fine, so long as you realize this is a popular conception,
>> not a postulate of science.
>>
>> >Anybody have a 6th sense? Speak up !!!!
>>
>> I can tell when whackos post to t.o. Does than count?
>
>I'm ready to tell you my secret now. I see dumb people.
I saw your movie!
No, wait; that was *dead* people...
Never mind...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Spencer 忽帕"
<qs...@supahat.com>:
DIG doesn't moderate in the traditional sense. The
moderation is done by a bot that mainly moderates WRT
crossposting, with a few specified addenda. Read the t.o
FAQ; I think it's covered in there.
Spencer 忽帕
"ML" <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176319543.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
A much older tradition maintains that there are 7 planets, 7 musical notes,
7 colours and 7 heavens.
The Law of Octaves or Heptaparaparshinokh as Gurdjieff called it.
He also explained the law of Three or Triamazikanmo. He liked to make up
long words.
Spencer 忽帕
Master D.. There is wisdom in your words I am unable to grasp. I shall not
move from under this ceiling until I understand.
Sean Carroll
> "ML" <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote
> | In the great state of New Mexico, Pluto is still a planet.
> | It is cool they did that.
> | I LIKE that in a state.
>
> A much older tradition maintains that there are 7 planets, 7 musical notes,
> 7 colours and 7 heavens.
Yeah, because seven was supposed to be a mystical number. That's how
come we classify the rainbow into 'red orange yellow green blue indigo
violet', even though 99% of people don't know what 'indigo' is and just
see blue going into violet. In fact, most of the time these days
scientists don't bother with the whole indigo thing, and they usually
just say ROYGBV instead of ROYGBIV.
--
--Sean
Frank J
> in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> ruled out evolution
>
> nature of biologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> an indeterminate system cannot result from a determinate onehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
> clearly animals like us are not biological robots
>
> if the soul is not a product of evolution, can we say that other things
> are, like the body, or perhaps plants that have no consciousness, free
> will, mind or soul and are simply animated like biological robots
>
> we observe the details that COULD lead up to evolution, yet evolution
> happens over a long time span and has NEVER been observed as a WHOLE
>
> our bodies and plants with respect to their environment seem to be a fit
> pair, leading one to believe that perhaps irreducible complexity
> arguments are on track
>
> I believe reality is a dream of God's and he and us are all players in
> the dream
All kingdom animalia, and none of the other kingdoms, correct?
>
> there is a disconnect in material reality that leads up to this
>
> the mind does not communicate consciously with the central nervous system
> to exert will over the body, should we believe in a mysterious
> subconscious that we all collectively repress, or is the better answer
> that this is a true hole and disconnect in material reality intended for
> us to realize the disconnect and realize the illusory nature of materiall
> reality
>
> my thinking is that a dream or plan of God's would be evolutionary in
> terms of the progress of the dream, biological evolution might be a part
> of his plan, but if we note such intervention in some areas, noted above,
> we must consider the possibility of intervention in other areas, like
> biological development
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Have you posted your ideas on creationist and ID web sites, and if so
what feedback did you get?
Frank J
> On Apr 9, 1:16 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > in terms of evolution of the will, consciousness mind or soul, I have
> > ruled out evolution
>
> guess that's it then. Shall we start a fund to help the out of work
> biologists who will soon be roaming the streets with vacant looks in
> their eyes?
No, no. Evolution is alive and well until Ray publishes his paper. ;-)
John Wilkins
> "Sean Carroll" <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bX9Th.36424$EJ6....@newsfe24.lga...
> | limitationsofscience wrote:
> |
> | > Balance is actually a form of touch sensation from the hair cells in
> | > the semicircular canals which detect fluid shifts as the head moves.
> |
> | Right -- semicircular canals, not cochlea. Oops.
> |
> | But I would argue against considering it a form of 'touch'. All those
> | other forms of touch -- temperature, pressure, pain, all that -- do
> | indeed all 'feel' like part of the same sense. The organ of sensation
> | for all of them is the skin.
...
> | When I spin around, the currents I make in my inner ear disrupt my sense
> | of balance, and I get dizzy -- but I don't 'feel' the dizziness against
> | my skin like I feel temperature, pressure, or pain. I 'feel' it in my
> | inner ear, just as I 'feel' smells in my nose, light in my eyes, sound
> | in my eardrum, and taste on my tongue.
>
> No. Proprioception doesn't feel like anything, certainly not like loss of
> balance when you lose it.
> I person who loses the sense of proprioception has to look to see where hir
> arms and legs are.
> The sense organs are in the joints but we are unaware of them.
Thanks. Proprioception is not balance or anything like it. It is the
sense of position of the body relative to itself. When you are able to
touch the tip of your nose with your eyes closed, that's proprioception.
Alchohol and drugs can interfere with it as can disease ("When I was a
child, I had a fever. My hands felt like two balloons"). It is often
regarded within medicine as the "sixth sense".
The myth that there are only five senses come sout of Aristotle. There
are as many senses as there are ways of interpreting the state of the
world.
>
> The most basic sense is taste - the chemical sense. Even single celled
> organisms have this. No nervous system or brain is required. Smell is pretty
> much the same as chemicals are dissolved in the wet nasal menbranes and then
> "tasted". Plants have many senses but no sensorium. I wonder why Buddhists
> classify organisms into sentient and non sentient beings.
> In practice they don't and I saw many ordained trees in Thailand. A piece of
> saffron cloth is fastened around the trunk and the tree is then treated with
> the same respect as any other monk.
> This is very usefull for conservation of urban trees and forests. To save a
> tree you don't need to live in it: just ask the local abbot to ordain it.
>
> "I fought the Dharma, and the Dharma won." (Allen Ginsberg)
Chemotaxis is a pretty ancient form of motility among animals. So it
(and smell, which is the same thing except in a gaseous medium rather
than a liquid one) probably is th eoriginal sense, although most
multicellular animals can orient themselves against gravity, so that
might be equally primitive.
John Wilkins
Well, he liked to import Greek words into English or whatever it was he
wrote in.
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Ach, yes, Greek shares with German the longwordformingtendancy.
Spencer 忽帕
| Spencer 忽帕 wrote:
| > "ML" <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote
|
| > | In the great state of New Mexico, Pluto is still a planet.
| > | It is cool they did that.
| > | I LIKE that in a state.
| >
| > A much older tradition maintains that there are 7 planets, 7 musical
notes,
| > 7 colours and 7 heavens.
|
| Yeah, because seven was supposed to be a mystical number. That's how
| come we classify the rainbow into 'red orange yellow green blue indigo
| violet', even though 99% of people don't know what 'indigo' is and just
| see blue going into violet. In fact, most of the time these days
| scientists don't bother with the whole indigo thing, and they usually
| just say ROYGBV instead of ROYGBIV.
I just looked up seven in my notebook. My source was "The Ancient Wisdom."
by Geoffrey Ashe.
I have a list of about 12 heptads that the ancients imposed on nature. The
question is, why seven?
He suggests that the answer is in the stars. Ursa Major, the Great Bear or
the big dipper is made up of 7 stars and it turns around the Pole Star. In
Siberian Shamanism the bear was the totem animal. He also suggests that
Neanderthals worshipped Bears but I don't know of any evidence for this.
Oddly in an earlier post I mentioned a Tibetan Diety but couldn't remember
the name. What I do remember is that he has the form of a bear. Co-incidence
or hidden connection? You decide.
Once I was thinking about Squeeky Frome - I do that quite a lot. I turned on
the radio and they were talking about her - they don't do that much. Spooky
or what?
John Wilkins
> In article <1hwgevj.hb64fqgmuq34N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Spencer ©¿©¬ <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "ML" <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1176319543.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > | On Apr 11, 1:39 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
...
> > >
> > > A much older tradition maintains that there are 7 planets, 7 musical
> > > notes, 7 colours and 7 heavens. The Law of Octaves or
> > > Heptaparaparshinokh as Gurdjieff called it. He also explained the law
> > > of Three or Triamazikanmo. He liked to make up long words.
> >
> > Well, he liked to import Greek words into English or whatever it was he
> > wrote in.
>
> Ach, yes, Greek shares with German the longwordformingtendancy.
So long as it has more or less than 13 letters I'm happy. I'm
triskaidekaphobic.
RaaN
<limitationofscie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 9:53 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Spencer 忽帕 wrote:
>
> > > > Let me stop you there. The notion of 5 senses is not a scientific one.
> > > > There is the sense of where parts of the body are, proprioception I think.
> > > > We also lump together about half a dozen separate senses under "touch". For
> > > > example heat and cold, pressure, light touch and pain: all separate senses.
>
> allow the differing forms of touch sensation.
> Touch however is considered one of the five senses.
>
> SIght can be subcategorized into rods and cones, motion
> sensitivityetc.
>
> Hearing can be subcategorized into sound frequencies, musical tonal
> abiltity etc.
>
> Taste can be subcatgorized into sour, sweet, bitter etc.
>
>
>
> > > The American Museum of Natural History has an exhibit that recognises
> > > six senses: the traditional five, plus balance.
>
> > Proprioception (the sensing of where your body parts are in relation to
> > the other parts)?
> > John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> > University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> > "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
> > bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
>
> the semicircular canals which detect fluid shifts as the head moves.
>
> 6th sense is considered supernatural.
>
>
What about the temporal sense?
--
RaaN
Spencer 忽帕
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hwgq66.kpymrn4nuka4N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> In article <1hwgevj.hb64fqgmuq34N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Spencer 忽帕 <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "ML" <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1176319543.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > | On Apr 11, 1:39 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
...
> > >
> > > A much older tradition maintains that there are 7 planets, 7 musical
> > > notes, 7 colours and 7 heavens. The Law of Octaves or
> > > Heptaparaparshinokh as Gurdjieff called it. He also explained the law
> > > of Three or Triamazikanmo. He liked to make up long words.
> >
> > Well, he liked to import Greek words into English or whatever it was he
> > wrote in.
>
> Ach, yes, Greek shares with German the longwordformingtendancy.
So long as it has more or less than 13 letters I'm happy. I'm
triskaidekaphobic.
Be afraid; be very afraid, "triamazikanmo" has exactly 13 letters as I've
spelt it. I did check the spelling of heptaparaparshinokh and correct it,
but haven't been able to check triamazikanmo yet.
Throwback
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 6:56 pm, "limitationsofscience"
> > <limitationofscie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The origin of the Universe, and of life itself, occurred in the
> > > distant past under conditions not necessarily experimentally
> > > reproducible and therefore not able to be studied in a strictly
> > > scientific manner.
>
> >http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html
>
> > Of interest is the claim that life was of extraterrestrial origin:
>
> > "On September 28, 1969, the Murchison meteorite that fell near
> > Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different
> > amino acids, 19 of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy
> > outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of
> > complex carbon compounds formed by these processes. The early Earth
> > was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of
> > complex organic molecules. This could imply an origin of life outside
> > of Earth, which then migrated here."
>
> At best it indicates amino acids could have been produced outside of
> earth. I rather doubt they were in anything living when they arrived.
For clarification, for those who didn't grasp it, such
as yourself: the claim was that 'THE BUILDING BLOCKS
OF LIFE, WHICH THEN BECAME LIFE, may be of
extraterrestrial origin', which clarified point, you addressed
in the first sentence in your reply above.
Walter Bushell
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote:
We;re safe Hell will be frozen over.
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hwgq66.kpymrn4nuka4N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
> In article <1hwgevj.hb64fqgmuq34N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Spencer 忽帕 <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "ML" <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1176319543.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > | On Apr 11, 1:39 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
...
> > >
> > > A much older tradition maintains that there are 7 planets, 7 musical
> > > notes, 7 colours and 7 heavens. The Law of Octaves or
> > > Heptaparaparshinokh as Gurdjieff called it. He also explained the law
> > > of Three or Triamazikanmo. He liked to make up long words.
> >
> > Well, he liked to import Greek words into English or whatever it was he
> > wrote in.
>
> Ach, yes, Greek shares with German the longwordformingtendancy.
So long as it has more or less than 13 letters I'm happy. I'm
triskaidekaphobic.
You must be unhappy being associated with a "Biohumanities" project.
Also, how do you feel when classified as one of us "evolutionists"?
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote...
> Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hwgevj.hb64fqgmuq34N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> > j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > Spencer ©¿©¬ <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "ML" <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1176319543.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > | On Apr 11, 1:39 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> ...
> > > >
> > > > A much older tradition maintains that there are 7 planets, 7 musical
> > > > notes, 7 colours and 7 heavens. The Law of Octaves or
> > > > Heptaparaparshinokh as Gurdjieff called it. He also explained the law
> > > > of Three or Triamazikanmo. He liked to make up long words.
> > >
> > > Well, he liked to import Greek words into English or whatever it was he
> > > wrote in.
> >
> > Ach, yes, Greek shares with German the longwordformingtendancy.
>
> So long as it has more or less than 13 letters I'm happy. I'm
> triskaidekaphobic.
>
> You must be unhappy being associated with a "Biohumanities" project.
> Also, how do you feel when classified as one of us "evolutionists"?
I didn't choose either of them...
Can't talk now. It's Friday 12Ath.
John Wilkins
Have you not read Milton's Paradise Lost? Hell is *already* frozen over.
That's why we get all these loons...
Ernest Major
Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> writes
(Counterexamples, antidisestablishmentationism, palaeoallohexaploidy)
--
alias Ernest Major
Mark Isaak
> "Sean Carroll" <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | come we classify the rainbow into 'red orange yellow green blue indigo
> | violet', even though 99% of people don't know what 'indigo' is and just
> | see blue going into violet. In fact, most of the time these days
> | scientists don't bother with the whole indigo thing, and they usually
> | just say ROYGBV instead of ROYGBIV.
>
> I just looked up seven in my notebook. My source was "The Ancient
> Wisdom." by Geoffrey Ashe.
> I have a list of about 12 heptads that the ancients imposed on nature.
> The question is, why seven?
> He suggests that the answer is in the stars. Ursa Major, the Great Bear
> or the big dipper is made up of 7 stars and it turns around the Pole
> Star. In Siberian Shamanism the bear was the totem animal.
I suspect the magical nature of seven originated in the Middle East,
though, not in Siberia. At least, there are a lot of sevens in the
Gilgamesh Epic, and I suspect Gilgamesh was not heavily influenced by
Siberians. Besides, the Great Bear is made up of more stars than the
Big Dipper.
My own guess about why seven is special is that it is the smallest number
which (a) is too big for most people to easily envision, and (b) is not
evenly divisible into groups of 2, 3, or 5, which people can grok in a
moment. My evidence for this hypothesis is that I am guessing.
Incidentally, I have encountered eight as a significant number in parts
of Polynesia and California, probably from folk science about how often
the big waves come. And of course, four is the big thing in most of
Native North America.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net>:
You could have saved a few syllables by replacing "until Ray
publishes his paper" with "forever".
Walter Bushell
"Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
> Once I was thinking about - I do that quite a lot. I turned on
> the radio and they were talking about her - they don't do that much. Spooky
> or what?
Thinking alot about Squeeky Frome is scary enough.
Ye Old One
Since so many of these building blocks are so wide spread in
interstellar dust clouds, it is almost certain that the early Earth
was rich in these molecules.
--
Bob.
Throwback
> Thinking alot about Squeeky Frome is scary enough.
Isn't that the manson family member who pointed a gun
at the prez, but didn't fire, in order to impress charlie?
Throwback
> On Apr 10, 9:46 am, "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
>
> > "What about the even balance of L and D (left and right oriented)
> > amino acids seen in your experiment, unlike the preponderance of L
> > seen in nature?
>
> > All of these pre-biotic experiments yield a racemic mixture, that is,
> > equal amounts of D and L forms of the compounds. Indeed, if you're
> > results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination. The
> > question is how did one form get selected. In my opinion, the
> > selection comes close to or slightly after the origin of life. There
> > is no way in my opinion that you are going to sort out the D and L
> > amino acids in separate pools. My opinion or working hypothesis is
> > that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
> > carbon "
>
> > Perplexing.
>
> Ok, so did the flying spaghetti monster make
> all amino acids levorotary?
How many amino acids are in proteins?
Throwback
In order to form an equation, and do some calculations,
I need the following:
I need three different proteins, small, medium, and
of large size. I need to know their amino acid sequence.
Then I need the relative proportion of the building blocks
existing in nature (the amino acids), taking
into account they are racemic.
Then I need a solution concentration, and temperature, in
order to calculate how many molecular collisions, and
thus reaction rates.
Then I need to know how many seconds have occured
since the earth formed.
If someone doesn't have the actual ratios or proportions
of the amino acids, I can make some estimates on that.
.
This is so I can make a good guesstimation of the odds and
how long it would take for proteins assembling themselves
in the proper sequence from a racemic mixture ...
(of course).
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
of proteins during the latter stages of abiogenesis.
It is generally agreed among those that study the matter that DNA and
proteins were relatively late arrivals to the scene. There is evidence
("molecular fossils") that RNA previously did duty as both genetic
material and enzymes. The metabolism of life was likely already using
non-racemic amino-acids before proteins arose.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Throwback
> In message <1176562704.023596.85...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
But they would in the early stages?
> It is generally agreed among those that study the matter that DNA and
> proteins were relatively late arrivals to the scene.
And would needed to be formed from amino acids.
> The metabolism of life was likely already using
> non-racemic amino-acids before proteins arose.
And exactly how did they get to be non racemic?
Spencer 忽帕
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:117666
I dunno, but always remember that evolution from self replicating molecules
up to single celled organisms is at least as long and complicated as from
single celled organisms to the present.
One could even say that all the realy hard work had been done in the first
part.
--
Spencer Manchester UK
Evolution is a harsh mistress.
http://www.euvolution.com/links.htm
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
No. There were no proteins during the earlier stages of abiogenesis.
>
>
>> It is generally agreed among those that study the matter that DNA and
>> proteins were relatively late arrivals to the scene.
>
>And would needed to be formed from amino acids.
Not in the case of DNA.
>
>> The metabolism of life was likely already using
>> non-racemic amino-acids before proteins arose.
>
>And exactly how did they get to be non racemic?
>
We don't know. Chirality specific ribozymes would do the trick, but for
all I know non-racemic amino-acids predate ribozymes.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mark Isaak
>> The metabolism of life was likely already using
>> non-racemic amino-acids before proteins arose.
>
> And exactly how did they get to be non racemic?
There are several mechanisms which can amplify an excess in one
handedness. See the references in the first paragraph of CB040
(www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html).
Throwback
> In message <1176662336.573308.253...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
I see what you were trying to do. You pulled the which came
first, the chicken or the egg, bait and switch.
Instead of proteins first, let's make it rna.
> >> It is generally agreed among those that study the matter that DNA and
> >> proteins were relatively late arrivals to the scene.
>
> >And would needed to be formed from amino acids.
>
> Not in the case of DNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis#Difficulties
"The base cytosine does not have a plausible prebiotic simulation
method because it easily undergoes hydrolysis.
Prebiotic simulations making nucleotides have conditions incompatible
with those for making sugars (lots of formaldehyde). So they must
somehow be synthesized, then brought together. However, they do not
react in water. Anhydrous reactions bind with purines, but only 8% of
them bind with the correct carbon atom on the sugar bound to the
correct nitrogen atom on the base. Pyrimidines, however, do not react
with ribose, even anhydrously.
Then phosphate must be introduced, but in nature phosphate in solution
is extremely rare because it is so readily precipitated. After being
introduced, the phosphate must combine with the nucleoside and the
correct hydroxyl must be phosphorylated.
For the nucleotides to form RNA, they must be activated themselves.
Activated purine nucleotides form small chains on a pre-existing
template of all-pyrimidine RNA. However, this does not happen in
reverse because the pyrimidine nucleotides do not stack well.
Additionally, the ribose must all be the same enantiomer, because any
nucleotides of the wrong chirality act as chain terminators[5].
A.G. Cairns-Smith in 1982 criticized writers for exaggerating the
implications of the Miller-Urey experiment. He argued that the
experiment showed, not the possibility that nucleic acids preceded
life, but its implausibility. He claimed that the process of
constructing nucleic acids would require 18 distinct conditions and
events that would have to occur continually over millions of years in
order to build up the required quantities.
One of the leading researchers into RNA world models, wrote[6]:
" The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with
RNA .... The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in
general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of
experimental data. "
- Gerald Joyce, 1989 "
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
>On Apr 15, 6:01 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <1176662336.573308.253...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 14, 12:22 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message <1176562704.023596.85...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> >> >On Apr 13, 10:46 am, "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 11, 11:02 am, "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 10, 9:46 am, "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > >http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
>>
>> >> >> > > "What about the even balance of L and D (left and right oriented)
>> >> >> > > amino acids seen in your experiment, unlike the preponderance of L
>> >> >> > > seen in nature?
>>
>> >> >> > > All of these pre-biotic experiments yield a racemic
>> >> >> > >mixture, that is,
>> >> >> > > equal amounts of D and L forms of the compounds. Indeed, if you're
>> >> >> > > results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination. The
>> >> >> > > question is how did one form get selected. In my opinion, the
>> >> >> > > selection comes close to or slightly after the origin of
>> >> >> > >
You're hallucinating. I wasn't trying to do anything like that.
Proteins were not formed by random assembly from a pool of amino acids.
Therefore your calculations are not relevant to abiogenesis.
What do you see in there which supports your claim that amino acids are
necessary precursors to DNA?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The metabolism of life was likely already using
>> >> non-racemic amino-acids before proteins arose.
>>
>> >And exactly how did they get to be non racemic?
>>
>> We don't know.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I smoke lots of exotic marijuana sugars every day and most of them
activate purine nucleotides as well as several other phosphorylated
hydroxyls and they are all good!
Throwback
> >Instead of proteins first, let's make it rna.
>
> >> >> It is generally agreed among those that study the matter that DNA and
> >> >> proteins were relatively late arrivals to the scene.
>
> >> >And would needed to be formed from amino acids.
>
> >> Not in the case of DNA.
Yeah, but I was refering to proteins.
> What do you see in there which supports your claim that amino acids are
> necessary precursors to DNA?
My link was to show you your rna hypothesis has problems.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
It does have few problems. However, at the moment an RNA world does
seem the most logical explanation, so what we need to do is look at
how the reactions necessary could have happened - and this may need
thinking way outside the normal box.
--
Bob.
Throwback
> On 12 Apr 2007 06:29:11 -0700, "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com>
Maybe the aliens picked em up on the way.
Throwback
> On 17 Apr 2007 06:11:58 -0700, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>
I am sure the aliens figured it out in their terraforming manual ...
Ye Old One
We are talking about a very alien world 4 billion years ago. Maybe we
will need to see alien worlds in order to work out just how alien our
own was.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Well, some would have come with comets, but most would just have
rained down during the early formation stage. There is even one line
of thought that life may have started twice on Earth, the first forms
having been wiped out by the collision that formed the Moon.
--
Bob.