An interesting read by Paul C, Davies . . . . . http://www.icpress.co.uk/etextbook/p581/p581_chap01.pdf
Ergo . . . . . . life from quantum processes . . . . ?
Ergo . . . . . . life from quantum processes . . . . ?
If the Miller experiment does not prove TOE, then only crackpots would support.
Your basic argument to TOE claims TOE explains the natural evolution of life in so far as it does not.
You are not able to claim TOE is a theory that explains the natural evolution of life without claiming abiogenesis as has been the case.
For example, let's assume you are correct and abiogenesis is false.
That implies TOE evolved from magic.
That is crackpottery.
If the Miller experiment does not prove TOE, then only crackpots would support.
Your basic argument to TOE claims TOE explains the natural evolution of life in so far as it does not.
You are not able to claim TOE is a theory that explains the natural evolution of life without claiming abiogenesis as has been the case.
For example, let's assume you are correct and abiogenesis is false.
That implies TOE evolved from magic
ToE explains the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of life.
If abiogenesis is false, then there could still have been other origins for the first life, which STILL must have evolved into all the life forms we see today and in the fossil record.
chinglu
Ahhh, and you were doing so well. Then you reset to this stupid claim again. The Miller experiment has no relevance to evolution at all. It does not support evolution, it does not disprove evolution because the Miller experiment was a chemistry experiment, evolution is not a study of chemistry.
You are sounding like a broken record or a robot that has been programmed but can learn nothing.
Sure I can, all of science agrees with me,too. Abiogenesis is the study of how chemistry became alive(building a car), evolution is the study of how life behaves after it is alive(driving a car after it is built). Mechanics(chemists) build cars, drivers(evolutionary scientists)drive them. And drivers(evolutionary scientists)need not know a single thing about how the car is built by mechanics(chemists)to drive the car(study evolution).
Funny, coming from someone who claims his invisible, all powerful sky daddy just said shazzam to produce life(and yes, I am mocking your charge of magic being involved).The TOE stands or falls on the evidence that life evolves, not how it began. It does not make any difference how life began, evolution is a fact and the TOE is science's best idea of the cause of the fact of evolution. It makes no claims about the chemistry that led to the first life as it is irrelevant to what happened once life began.
Grumpy
Yes I see how that works, but not why you don´t continue with your logic and insist the formation a Earth from cosmic gasses is also part of ToE? That is surly also a preceding essential step for the conventional limits of ToE.It's not me having a problem understanding this.
You need to make a decision and comer out of the closet. Is TOE base chemistry and physics yes or not.
Or, is TOE a religion. You just take a stand.
Now, once you take the correct stand that TOE is founded on chemistry and physics, then you must also explain how natural events evolved from chemistry and physics to chemistry and physics. See how that works?
It is pretty simple. Either TOE is based on the natural operations of chemistry and physics or it is not. If it is, then abiogenesis is part of TOE.
On the other hand, if TOE us not based completely on the natural operations of chemistry and physics, then it is a religion.
Take your pick.
If abiogenesis is false, then life evolved by supernatural or magically conditions.
Otherwise, please indicate how this is false.
No it isn't. There is no boundary at all, which is why it freaks you out....The boundary between Chemistry of living and not living things is about as clean a cut as there is...
If abiogenesis is false, then life evolved by supernatural or magically conditions.
Otherwise, please indicate how this is false.
Living things use chemistry and/or physic to draw energy and materials from the environment to reproduce their form in separate, essentially identical, examples. Non-living things do not. That seem a clear line / subject boundary to me. Why not to you?No it isn't. There is no boundary at all, which is why it freaks you out.
Yes I see how that works, but not why you don´t continue with your logic and insist the formation a Earth from cosmic gasses is also part of ToE? That is surly also a preceding essential step for the conventional limits of ToE.
Fact is that understanding most things is advanced if one does limit the field by "cutting it at the natural boundaries." The boundary between Chemistry of living and not living things is about as clean a cut as there is.
Predictions of / within the conventionally limited field of ToE can be made (and tested in many cases) without knowing how the Planet earth formed (or how first simple life came to be). So ToE is a useful and well defined field of study without either of these earlier process being completely understood. See how that works?
My point to you (which has gotten lost in other´s follow on comments) was that if (and I have offered how) life can be separately defined from non life, then one does not need to know how life began - that is not part of how life forms change (evolves) ToE is then properly limited to just the evolution of life forms. If however, one can not clearly separate life from non life then your POV is not unreasonable - just not commonly done. I.e. if there is no boundary definable between life and non life, then ToE could be extended backwards to ever simpler chemical processes (or even to how the Earth formed as that too is a necessary preceding step in your backward extended ToE.)My problem with your logic is I have no methodology to emerge life from chemicals. ...
nonsense - Math is really a closed tautology - not necessarily about or proving anything really existing. Some math developments do have useful applications, however to real things and processes. For example imaginary numbers are very useful in the analysis of electric circuits which have reactive elements in them. None the less math applied to these circuits do not PROVE anything. The only things math can prove are relationships within the tautology. In fact there is nothing out side of that tautology that can be proven - best you can do is repeated test and confirm - never prove, not even that the sun will rise tomorrow.TOE needs a mathematical basis for its conclusions. Otherwise, it is crackpottery.
Google abiogenesis. (Seek and ye shall find.)My problem with your logic is I have no methodology to emerge life from chemicals.
It does. It is mathematically impossible for all the species to coexist at the same time.TOE needs a mathematical basis for its conclusions.
No. Denouncing something without first learning what it says is the quintessential mark of a crackpot.Otherwise, it is crackpottery.
Can you apply Kleene to explain the speciation of the elements into the periodic table? How about all the species of products of any given set of reactants? Until you can do this, how do you expect to explain the "math" behind mutation, crossover, gene expression, transcription and signaling?All we have is the Kleene recursion theorem and it specifically requires a base case to apply further modifications based on state n.
No, all you need is to read Darwin and explain how the finches got to Galapagos. You'll discover Kleene has no application to this problem.TOE has no base case and therefore has no mathematical basis. I would need this base case as required by mathematical logic to support TOE.
A few quotes (and my comments) from your link:Re: My last post . . . .
Link: arxiv.org/pdf/1204.3770
Quantum Electrodynamics of Nanosystems
Excerpt: “Casimir force may be the accidently generated force that may lead to the unexpected and unexplained behavior of the protein folding and carbon Nanotubes. Not only that, dense localities of these molecules like hydrophobic portion of protein molecules may have high densities and chemical potentials instantaneously to generate stronger than expected Casimir force.”
I know nothing of Kleene,* but the Pauli exclusion principle can explain easily the first half of the periodic table and the second with some energy considerations added (next permitted location an electron fills for lowest energy may be a higher principle quantum shell instead of completely filling the next lower principle quantum number shell. - Rare Earths are produced when the more inner shell fills as the outer shell stays constant with essentially identical chemical properties resulting.)... Can you apply Kleene to explain the speciation of the elements into the periodic table?....
This is a terracentric viewpoint. We have no way of knowing how life might arise in other environments. The seven characteristics I listed initially are surely not a complete set to cover all forms of life in the universe, but they at least can be applied to forms that are not built exactly like the ones on this planet.By the way, all life is molecular, all other traits are developed by nature to support the chemical life(DNA)in your cells and to insure their reproduction.
This is a terracentric viewpoint
The seven characteristics I listed initially are surely not a complete set to cover all forms of life in the universe, but they at least can be applied to forms that are not built exactly like the ones on this planet.