Woo woo! The crazy train is leaving the station. What patterns are you talking about? Why do you think DNA is a pattern? Crystals are patterns, life isn't a crystal.
chinglu's version of evolution and abiogenesis
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
- Status
Woo woo! The crazy train is leaving the station. What patterns are you talking about? Why do you think DNA is a pattern? Crystals are patterns, life isn't a crystal.
BillyT:
Yes . . . CE effect is weak, but measurable. Where did you learn that CE ONLY works between metal plates?. It is hypothesized by many (Google it!) to also operate at the micron and submicron scales in organic media as well . . . . . scale seems to be the most important factor . . . scale must be comensurate with the quantum scale for CE to work . . . . in any media.
SG:
Woo woo? . . . .more likely it's "EUREKA!" DNA IS a pattern of assembled nucleic acid pairs loosely-bound by hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is susceptible to modification (e.g., breakage, recombination, etc.) by other (similar) weak forces (such as Casimir Effect).
Yes . . . CE effect is weak, but measurable. Where did you learn that CE ONLY works between metal plates?. It is hypothesized by many (Google it!) to also operate at the micron and submicron scales in organic media as well . . . . . scale seems to be the most important factor . . . scale must be comensurate with the quantum scale for CE to work . . . . in any media.
SG:
Woo woo? . . . .more likely it's "EUREKA!" DNA IS a pattern of assembled nucleic acid pairs loosely-bound by hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is susceptible to modification (e.g., breakage, recombination, etc.) by other (similar) weak forces (such as Casimir Effect).
You are confused.
I do not have a post 14.
And your red is based on another poster and not me.
Can you logically explain your position so it makes sense?
AFAIK that is the ONLY condition in which this weak effect has ever been observed. Read my simplified "Why Casimir Effect exists" below to know why I think conducting plates are ESSENTIAL.
I would like to read where it has been HYPOTHESIZED to operate on very small scale without the conducting boundaries that cause it to exist. - Please give a link.
Why Casimir Effect exists:
All space is filled with virtual radiation of all wave lengths that exert equal radiation pressure in all directions with zero net force; except wave lengths which are traveling perpendicular to the plates which are greater than the space between two conducting plates can not exist between the conductors. (They are sort of "shorted out.")
The absence of this part of the virtual radiation between the plates means that the total outward radiation between the plates, without this part is slightly less than the full spectrum of radiation´s pressure outside of the plates, so there is a slight net force pushing the plates together, called the Casimir Effect.
Note closely spaced plates exclude more wavelength (all that are longer than the space between the plates). This increases the net radiation pressure imbalance - why Casimir Effect is only observable with closely spaced plates.
This is an oversimplified explanation, but should suggest to you why I think the Casimir Effect does not exist except between conductors.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I´m not confused. I never said post 14 was yours - it is mine:
You quoted my post 14 in your post 29 and asked “what does this mean?”
I replied in post 37 saying “´My statement you made bold is very clear. …” which you quoted in your post 39 and again asked: “So what? What point are you trying to make? …”
To which I replied in post 42: “I told you twice already (posts 18 & 21) - You must be a slow learned or even a non-learner. …” As my point was as clear as my statement in post 14 which you asked about to start our exchange.
Then you replied in post43 and me then to you in post 44.
The confusion is yours.
I see. I am not a slow learner, your posts simply have nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Instead of making that claim outright, I like to ask folks what they mean so that I can be sure instead of claiming I have ESP and understand all of their thoughts.
So, after our interaction, I can confirm, your posts have nothing to do with what I was saying.
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Although this may not have an adverse impact on an empirical model, since these are only dependent on the data field which evolution focuses on, the question becomes, can this starting point have an impact on the reality behind evolution?
For example, say we did a thesis on the evolution of the automobile. Instead of starting in 1769 (steam powered) when it all began, we start our thesis in 1920. We can still draw a curve from 1920 to the present. But, will these two models (1769 to present, and, 1920 to present) be the same?
I would guess there will be differences. The reason is, the earliest thinking impacts the continuity of the future, since science, technology and knowledge builds upon itself. If you don't know the past, you will have to assume something but out of the context of the times.
For example, at the very beginning of abiogenesis, we had water as the majority component. Organics had this constant then and still now. Modern cells have more organic but water is still the majority chemical. Like natural selection certain things will work out better than others within water because of surface tension, for example. If we come in at replicators we can ignore this scaffolding and assume anything is possible, randomly. With the scaffolding of water, this is not true, due to energetics being different for different situations.
For example, say we did a thesis on the evolution of the automobile. Instead of starting in 1769 (steam powered) when it all began, we start our thesis in 1920. We can still draw a curve from 1920 to the present. But, will these two models (1769 to present, and, 1920 to present) be the same?
I would guess there will be differences. The reason is, the earliest thinking impacts the continuity of the future, since science, technology and knowledge builds upon itself. If you don't know the past, you will have to assume something but out of the context of the times.
For example, at the very beginning of abiogenesis, we had water as the majority component. Organics had this constant then and still now. Modern cells have more organic but water is still the majority chemical. Like natural selection certain things will work out better than others within water because of surface tension, for example. If we come in at replicators we can ignore this scaffolding and assume anything is possible, randomly. With the scaffolding of water, this is not true, due to energetics being different for different situations.
This is just one definition in which TOE claims to explain abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on Earth through random, natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it was defined by the evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
http://creationwiki.org/Theory_of_evolution
Also, if abiogenesis is not contained in TOE, then there be some mainstream documentation in which abiogenesis is asserted as a different form of science that is not under TOE rules.
Do you have said documentation?
chinglu
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
They are two different areas of study. One deals with inorganic matter, the other organic matter. I really don't know how to put it any more simply.
Grumpy
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
They are two different areas of study. One deals with inorganic matter, the other organic matter. I really don't know how to put it any more simply.
Grumpy
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Kerkut does not speak for the community of biologists and in fact his views are quite controversial. If you had looked more closely at the website you linked to, you might have noticed that it is woo-woo, not actual science. Like all of these people, they pick and choose isolated papers and other evidence that appear to support their fraudulent arguments.
Apparently you live in a country that doesn't have Wikipedia.
In other words, in this typical model, the process of abiogenesis had already passed through at least one stage before the process of evolution began.Wikipedia said:
In your own article, here is a quote from Darwin.
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[16] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
If Darwin is not referring to abiogenesis, exactly what does he mean since it is Darwin's theory of evolution.
No it isn't random. Creation wiki? Really?
Nobody except his biographers cares what Darwin meant or said about this or that. It isn't "his" theory, he doesn't own it, he doesn't get to say what it means, it's just named after him because he's the remarkable genius who invented it and made it stick with a lifetime of hard work and prescient cogitation. He's long dead, and whatever mistakes he made or didn't make are buried with him, as far as current science is concerned.chinglu said:
You don't get anywhere with scientific types by quoting supposed authorities. We don't deal in prophets and revelations.
on the other hand:
There's no reason the obvious possibility for the development of sufficient chemical complexity to support the origins of modern life should be refused admission to any discussion. Darwinian evolution certainly does not require a living entity to come into play - the "reproduction" stage, for example, can easily be an outside loop involving distant and unrelated entities or situations (the reproduction of certain clay formations, for example, or crystal disseminations) rather than a self reproduction by the entity evolving.
The issue with my post and response is that DARWIN himself included Abiogenesis as part of his logic.
To refute this, you and science must claim DARWIN was totally failed except in considering life in term of natural occurrence after creation, whatever that means.
Science must therefore confess DARWIN was a crackpot in his writings about Abiogenesis.
Do you folks agree he was a crackpot?
So?chinglu said:
Nobody cares what Darwin said about abiogenesis, OK? It's beside the point. The man's dead, leave him rest in peace.
So? Nobody cares whether Darwin had crackpot notions about this or that. Why are you bringing Darwin into this discussion? He's been dead for more than a century.chinglu said:
Not that I think any of his notions were crackpot, but I certainly don't open the Origin of Species looking for information relevant to a modern discussion of abiogenesis. It was published in the 1800s.
chinglu
No, he did not. At no time did he include Abiogenesis in his theory. And even modern Evolutionary theory does not deal with abiogenesis. He simply answered a question about abiogenesis when he was asked about it. You will find no passages in his book dealing with the subject. He knew nothing about abiogenesis, or DNA for that matter.
Darwin was not a crack pot and he had no writings about abiogenesis, he didn't study it as he was studying life, not chemistry, but I have a different opinion about you, stop trolling on this, you have been informed of your errors of fact and logic. Darwin never wrote about abiogenesis, whatever opinion he had about the subject. He was COMPLETELY dealing with evolution by Natural Selection which is a FACT no matter how life got started.
And far from failing, he succeeded on the same level as Einstein, his work has stood the test for over 150 years and no dweeb on the internet who has shown a particularly low level of ability to learn a damned thing is going to win this argument.
His SPECULATION in a letter is not his theory of evolution by Natural Selection. Everything he ever said is not necessarily in his theory, you know. Maybe if you read his book, instead of the lies on Creationist sites about what it contains and entails you would learn something that would make you at least appear to have a rational mind, but somehow I doubt it.
I hate repeating myself, but it seems that it takes some greater effort to penitrate that skull full of mush...
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
They are two different areas of study. One deals with inorganic matter, the other organic matter. I really don't know how to put it any more simply.
Grumpy
No, he did not. At no time did he include Abiogenesis in his theory. And even modern Evolutionary theory does not deal with abiogenesis. He simply answered a question about abiogenesis when he was asked about it. You will find no passages in his book dealing with the subject. He knew nothing about abiogenesis, or DNA for that matter.
Darwin was not a crack pot and he had no writings about abiogenesis, he didn't study it as he was studying life, not chemistry, but I have a different opinion about you, stop trolling on this, you have been informed of your errors of fact and logic. Darwin never wrote about abiogenesis, whatever opinion he had about the subject. He was COMPLETELY dealing with evolution by Natural Selection which is a FACT no matter how life got started.
And far from failing, he succeeded on the same level as Einstein, his work has stood the test for over 150 years and no dweeb on the internet who has shown a particularly low level of ability to learn a damned thing is going to win this argument.
His SPECULATION in a letter is not his theory of evolution by Natural Selection. Everything he ever said is not necessarily in his theory, you know. Maybe if you read his book, instead of the lies on Creationist sites about what it contains and entails you would learn something that would make you at least appear to have a rational mind, but somehow I doubt it.
I hate repeating myself, but it seems that it takes some greater effort to penitrate that skull full of mush...
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations.
They are two different areas of study. One deals with inorganic matter, the other organic matter. I really don't know how to put it any more simply.
Grumpy
and if you read further, in the next section it states:
In 1952, in the Miller-Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
No, his logic was published about 12 years before this letter, and at least 5 years before Pasteur made the statement that precipitated Darwin's remark.
There is nothing to refute.
No, that's just your opinion.
No. Creationists are crackpots. Darwin is one of the good guys.
You obviously have never read Darwin. Here's where the evidence about him begins:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=28&itemID=F401&viewtype=side
- Status