Ahhh, finally. The beginning of evolution!

[scifes]

The self is an illusion.

then you and me are one!!


(sorry couldn't help myself)

 

[scifes]

Hypothetically, would transforming inert chemicals to RNA to DNA to "animal" in the lab do it?

i guess so..
but i'm sure it'll get ugly..sems a good way to end the world then..

kinda reminds me of the anime: Fullmetal Alchemist..

because all what they're doing is looking for the body.. a heap of carbon and H2O..lol then what??

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I'd be interested in why a combination of abiotic molecules leads to the phenomenon of consciousness. Just mixing them up and getting the "building blocks" of life is interesting, but it doesn't reveal to me why these blocks get together and lead to a person with opinions on art, for instance.

I would say that the interaction of ‘building blocks’ to form the first RNA didn’t lead to a person with opinions on art, it lead to the formation of the first living cells. That’s abiogenesis.

Once living cells existed, they were subject to random modification and selective pressures that resulted in gradual changes. The gradual changes resulted, eventually, in multicellular organisms, animals, and finally humans. That’s evolution.

You might think this is hair-slitting, but I think it’s an important distinction. I don’t see why the process of abiogenesis must necessarily result in eventual consciousness. That’s the result of the vagaries of evolution.

 

[Michael]

Imagine being born color blind - - but without the predisposition to accept it?

To me, yes. I'd be interested in why a combination of abiotic molecules leads to the phenomenon of consciousness. Just mixing them up and getting the "building blocks" of life is interesting, but it doesn't reveal to me why these blocks get together and lead to a person with opinions on art, for instance.

Well, if you (or anyone really) truly wanted a closer model of the truth then say take a read of this: Information Theory.

But that's not really what you desire ... is it?

Imagine if you could learn the truth, and the truth was - there is no God and never was. Would you like to know that? To know the truth of things?


No, I don't think you would. Which is OK, but it does beg the question - Why Bother?

 

[S.A.M.]

You might think this is hair-slitting, but I think it’s an important distinction. I don’t see why the process of abiogenesis must necessarily result in eventual consciousness. That’s the result of the vagaries of evolution.

I wasn't referring to the how, but the why.

Imagine being born color blind - - but without the predisposition to accept it?

Well, if you (or anyone really) truly wanted a closer model of the truth then say take a read of this: Information Theory.

But that's not really what you desire ... is it?

Imagine if you could learn the truth, and the truth was - there is no God and never was. Would you like to know that? To know the truth of things?


No, I don't think you would. Which is OK, but it does beg the question - Why Bother?

Huh?

 

[leopold]

Huh?

seconded.
talk about draqon zooming in out of nowhere.

 

[The Esotericist]

To me, yes. I'd be interested in why a combination of abiotic molecules leads to the phenomenon of consciousness. Just mixing them up and getting the "building blocks" of life is interesting, but it doesn't reveal to me why these blocks get together and lead to a person with opinions on art, for instance.

hmmmm. . . . interesting discussion. But here, you hit the nail on the head you see? This is actually the answer to the question, not the question you need answered. CONSCIOUSNESS. Thought, thinking within thought, IS what creates matter and energy. Indeed, the whole of creation is consciousness, and so, IT is what drives manifestation.

And, as yet, one of the most comprehensive, Grand Unified Theories, which ties in the biological sciences, in my limited understanding, is the consciousness of the whole that drives the formation of the building blocks of life.

"Dr. Hagelin is a world authority in the area of unified quantum field theories. His scientific contributions in the fields of particle physics and cosmology include some of the most cited references in the physical sciences. He is co-developer of what is now considered the leading contender for a grand unified field theory, known as Supersymmetric Flipped SU(5)."

I don't know if anyone has access to University Research Databases, I don't, so I am restricted from doing research on this topic. About a three years ago, I came across something referred to as a "Ganesh Particle." Originally, it was a US government black ops project, however, I am led to believe, if you are a student, a grad student with credentials, or a faculty member, that can gain access to the data bases at CAL TECH in California, you can find out more about this fascinating particle. This is all I know.

-- with gratitude, thank you for your time, open minds, and thoughtful consideration.eace:

 

[Michael]

seconded.
talk about draqon zooming in out of nowhere.

I did mention in another thread I have a mild concussion and spent part of my weekend in the hospital...

 

[The Esotericist]

I wonder how far scientists will have to take the process before a few of the "intelligent design" types will begin scratching their collective heads, pondering the possibility of a "natural" origin for life... Hypothetically, would transforming inert chemicals to RNA to DNA to "animal" in the lab do it?

I would think, in the future, inert chemicals wouldn't even be necessary? Wouldn't pure energy and thought be enough?

 

[Oli]

hmmmm. . . . interesting discussion. But here, you hit the nail on the head you see? This is actually the answer to the question, not the question you need answered. CONSCIOUSNESS. Thought, thinking within thought, IS what creates matter and energy. Indeed, the whole of creation is consciousness, and so, IT is what drives manifestation.

So where did the consciousness come from?

"Dr. Hagelin is a world authority in the area of unified quantum field theories. His scientific contributions in the fields of particle physics and cosmology include some of the most cited references in the physical sciences. He is co-developer of what is now considered the leading contender for a grand unified field theory, known as Supersymmetric Flipped SU(5)."

Unsourced quote?
John Hagelin?

I don't know if anyone has access to University Research Databases, I don't, so I am restricted from doing research on this topic. About a three years ago, I came across something referred to as a "Ganesh Particle." Originally, it was a US government black ops project, however,

Ganesh particle = conspiracy theorist/ aliens are here pseudoscience & woo-wooism.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=28600
http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...&q="ganesh+particle"&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

I am led to believe, if you are a student, a grad student with credentials, or a faculty member, that can gain access to the data bases at CAL TECH in California, you can find out more about this fascinating particle.

You were misled:
http://search.caltech.edu/search?q=...client=Caltechweb&proxystylesheet=Caltechweb#

 

[The Esotericist]

I do not wish to tangle or argue with you here too, Mr. Oli. Is confrontation all you desire? I wish not to generate controversy and negativity. Much of these questions, if you are truly curious, you could find out for yourself rather than cause a public spectle, could you not? You seem an intelligent sort of fellow. I have enjoyed many of your more productive contributions, thank you.

As far as an un-sourced quote is concerned, the number of my postings so far limits my ability to post links, otherwise sir, yes, I would have included a link. The name is rather famous, he has ran for president of the United States a few times, you should have no problem finding information on the rather extraordinary individual. When I am able to post links, I will personally PM you some links to some of my favorite lectures by him that should clear things up for you.

I am fully aware that the Ganesh Particale is an object of ridicule and scorn in the main stream search engines and rigid dogmatic paradigm thinking community, didn't I allude to as much in my post? That is why a posted what I knew of any LEGITIMATE attempts to investigate this sub-atomic particle. Thank you for posting the links to that thread, how very kind of you.

So where did the consciousness come from?

. . . again, I do believe, in answering this question, it is just a setup for more judgmental behavior, don't you? Eventually, no matter what your beliefs are, there does have to be an alpha and an omega, does there not? So let us not ask questions we know the answers to already, if our only intention is to be quarrelsome. If your goal is REALLY enlightenment, and NOT confrontation, that by all means, investigate Dr. Hagelin's lectures on Youtube, and perhaps you will see a whole new paradigm shift you hadn't even considered. I could tell you why you hadn't, but that is off topic. I shan't do it here.

 

[Oli]

I do not wish to tangle or argue with you here too, Mr. Oli. Is confrontation all you desire?

Confrontation?
Nope, reality would be nice though.

I wish not to generate controversy and negativity. Much of these questions, if you are truly curious, you could find out for yourself rather than cause a public spectle, could you not?

I have: hence the woo-woo comment.

As far as an un-sourced quote is concerned, the number of my postings so far limits my ability to post links, otherwise sir, yes, I would have included a link.

There are ways and means to indicate a link even if one cannot be posted.

The name is rather famous, he has ran for president of the United States a few times

So he did, on a crank platform.

I am fully aware that the Ganesh Particale is an object of ridicule and scorn in the main stream search engines and rigid dogmatic paradigm thinking community, didn't I allude to as much in my post? That is why a posted what I knew of any LEGITIMATE attempts to investigate this sub-atomic particle. Thank you for posting the links to that thread, how very kind of you.

If you'd done any research you'd know it isn't even supposed to be a particle, but rather "knotted electro-magnetism".
But Burisch is a crank also.

. . . again, I do believe, in answering this question, it is just a setup for more judgmental behavior, don't you? Eventually, no matter what your beliefs are, there does have to be an alpha and an omega, does there not? So let us not ask questions we know the answers to already, if our only intention is to be quarrelsome. If your goal is REALLY enlightenment, and NOT confrontation, that by all means, investigate Dr. Hagelin's lectures on Youtube, and perhaps you will see a whole new paradigm shift you hadn't even considered. I could tell you why you hadn't, but that is off topic. I shan't do it here.

I've read Hagelin's stuff, and Burisch's.
Aliens, Area 51, angels...

 

[cosmictraveler]

As indicated above, RNA came about through the interaction of ribose, phosphate and purine/pyrimidine molecules. Exactly how I don’t know; I’m not sure anyone knows.

I would think it is important to understand just how RNA was developed since that is a very important part of what we all are made up from. Why can't anyone find out where RNA actually was derived from?

SAM , do you have any ideas as to where RNA came from and how it came into being?

 

[granpa]

no, it's not funny, it's a valid question.
apparently RNA came from a racemic mixture of amino acids.
but that can't be true unless some type of catalyst selected for handedness.

or amino acids came from rna which evolved from some simpler polymer or pseudopolymer (with subunits stacking like plates and held together by weak hydrogen bonds rather than real chemical bonds)

also the organic compounds that formed the subunits may have come from comets. indeed one theory says that much of our ocean came from comets.

A little idea of my own:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37167

 

[The Esotericist]

So he did, on a crank platform. . . .
But Burisch is a crank also.

My good sir, you use that word a lot in your pretentious monologues.

From the online URBAN DICTIONARY
1. CRANK

someone who is a bit of a twat or annoying you
"shut up you crank"
" your boyfrind is a f***ing crank"
twat, annoying, prick, shut up, tosser
​

​

​

Hmmm. . . It seems to me, the definition of crank, really it is a more or less a fitting description of your behavior currently then two famous, published, world renowned scholars you happen to disagree with. Don't you?

I never claimed to be an expert at anything now, did I? As such, I wonder why you think you have the right to pass judgment on another when I specifically stated I have no quarrel with you and will not engage in this sort of juvenile behavior.

The mere fact that you would say something like,

There are ways and means to indicate a link even if one cannot be posted.

Indicates to me you have absolutely no respect for not only me, by flinging out verbal insults; but no respect for the forum, by encouraging me to find ways to break the rules, just to suit you so that my posts can somehow live up to your standards?!? What sort of nonsense is this? Indeed kind sir, you HAVE proven to me, and everyone in this forum by this post, you are quarreling just for the sake of being tiresome.

If you get down and quarrel everyday, you're saying prayers to the devil, I say.
~ Bob Marley

 

[Oli]

My good sir, you use that word a lot inyour pretentious monologues.

Probably because there are so many cranks around.

From the online URBAN DICTIONARY
1. CRANK

someone who is a bit of a twat or annoying you
"shut up you crank"
" your boyfrind is a f***ing crank"
twat, annoying, prick, shut up, tosser
​

​

​

Hmmm. . . It seems to me, the definition of crank, really it is a more or less a fitting description of your behavior currently then two famous, published, world renowned scholars you happen to disagree with. Don't you?

Perhaps you should use a real dictionary:
from the Pocket Oxford -

crank —n. 1 part of an axle or shaft bent at right angles for converting reciprocal into circular motion or vice versa. 2 eccentric person.

Meaning 2.
So you you don't think a fantasist (Burisch) or someone who makes untrue claims about what physics has discovered (Hagelin - actually also a fantasist) aren't eccentric?

I never claimed to be an expert at anything now, did I?

Did I say you had?
I merely pointed out that you were under some misconception about the nature of the "Ganesh particle" - something that took me all of five minutes to discover.
Which doesn't say much for you having heard of it 3 years ago does it?

As such, I wonder why you think you have the right to pass judgment on another when I specifically stated I have no quarrel with you and will not engage in this sort of juvenile behavior.

Quarrel?
I'm not quarrelling, merely pointing out that the subject is a fantasy.

The mere fact that you would say something like,
Indicates to me you have absolutely no respect for not only me, by flinging out verbal insults; but no respect for the forum, by encouraging me to find ways to break the rules, just to suit you so that my posts can somehow live up to your standards?!? What sort of nonsense is this? Indeed kind sir, you HAVE proven to me, and everyone in this forum by this post, you are quarreling just for the sake of being tiresome.

Respect is earned.
This forum has earned it, you however are losing any respect I may have had for you at all.
Break the rules?
You misunderstand - what's breaking the rules by adding something along the lines of this-is-a-link? Or even the name of site from which the quote was taken?
And as for tiresome, how about someone posting unsubstantiated rubbish?
Where does that fit in your taxonomy?

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM , do you have any ideas as to where RNA came from and how it came into being?

There is a hypothesis known as RNA world, which indicates that before a DNA world, there was an RNA world.

There are still limitations on explaining exactly how this RNA world may have come into being

Since there are no known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions, it may be the case that nucleic acids did not contain the nucleobases seen in life's nucleic acids.[15] The nucleoside cytosine has a half-life in isolation of 19 days at 100 °C (212 °F) and 17,000 years in freezing water, which has been argue to be too short on the geologic time scale for accumultation.[16] Others have questioned whether ribose and other backbone sugars could be stable enough to be found in the original genetic material,[17] and have raised the issue that ribose must all be the same enantiomer as any nucleotide of the wrong chirality acts as chain terminators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis#History

If anyone knows more, feel free to jump in.

 

[leopold]

There is a hypothesis known as RNA world, which indicates that before a DNA world, there was an RNA world.

There are still limitations on explaining exactly how this RNA world may have come into being



If anyone knows more, feel free to jump in.

this is what i alluded to earlier.
according to miller-urey the primordial conditions created a racemic mixture of amino acids. life cannot form in these conditions without some sort of catalyst that selected handedness.

 

[granpa]

is it possible that the original pair of nucleotides consisted only of the right and left handed versions of a single compound? the two versions somehow linking together to form a base pair.

 

[The Esotericist]

Where does that fit in your taxonomy?

You're right, I'm wrong. I can't hold a single point of view, or an opinion that isn't complete rubbish. Thank you so much for your time, I am ever so grateful for your charitable words.