Knowledge and subjectivity. Origin of life

[Dywyddyr]

The point many people are making, is the evolutionists and abiogenesis speak the language of science, but does not have the smoking gun of proof that can overcome all doubt.

You use of the word "proof" show that you don't really understand what you're talking about.

This will not occur until life is formed in the lab and shows signs of self change.

You appear to be severely confused here.
"Self change" has already been observed. In the lab and in the "real world".

It does not requiring an elaborate filter of the mind, based on education, to see. An extensive education in religion will allow one to see God in life just as well. That is why direct proof is so important; it helps to factor out the filter of education glasses.

Was it your intent to ramble incoherently and claim that there's no more "proof" of god than there is (in your mind) of evolution?

As an analogy

Yeah.
The thing here is is that anyone can make up an analogy.
And also make up the internal "logic" of that "analogy" using specious examples.
Making an analogy between a actuality and a speculation is doing the wrong way round.

I faithfully have used the science of materials and logic

Given your continually displayed lack of both science (of just about any sort) AND logic why should we just take your word?

The random filler is where you can easily asset God into the equation as easy as Chaos.

This is entirely crap.
Chaos is amenable to mathematics. "God" isn't.

God is about logic and sequence

Unsupported claim.
Please provide evidence.

and Chaos has no sense of direction, to help with broken logic.

Meaningless.

 

[chinglu]

Really?


So what?
I can prove a banana isn't a sheep under the definition of fish.
Science and mathematical logic are different disciplines. (You should know that without needing to be told).
And you didn't refute it. You merely claimed it's not.

If TOE is not a theory according to mathematical logic, what kind of theory is it? Show your work.

[
Like I stated quite clearly.
Evolution is fact.
The "theory" part is about how it happens. Whether or not that theory manages to cover everything at the current moment is largely irrelevant.
It's still an explanation based on what we know.You are aware that theories get modified? Altered? Aren't claimed to be the last final incontrovertible word?
That new findings can change them?
(Oh, and since I can't access the particular document that you referenced perhaps you could quote the relevant parts that make the current theory "not a theory").

On one hand you claim TOE is a fact and then on the other you claim it is a theory and "theories get modified". Can you explain how a fact can be modified.

You see, if TOE is a fact, then it is an absolute fact that cannot ever be challenged. Yet, I already posted an experiment that proved TOE is refuted by the experiment.

So, you are left claiming TOE is both a theory and a fact, which is a contradiction.

 

[chinglu]

Note to thread.

This should not be a point of contention. TOE cannot explain abiogenesis and in fact no scientific verifiable method can do this.

So, instead of attaching to failed theories, we really do not know what is going on.

In the first place, none of this should be here. Somehow, things emerged from nothing for this place to exist one way or another.

And in the second place, this does not work in any form of reasoning.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If TOE is not a theory according to mathematical logic

It's a scientific theory, as has been pointed out so your claim, while true, is moot and worthless.
Science is not, nor is it predicated upon, mathematical logic.
If you bothered checking you'd find that there's a definition for "theory" as used by mathematical logic and one for the word as used by science as a discipline.
The one is not the other.

On one hand you claim TOE is a fact and then on the other you claim it is a theory and "theories get modified". Can you explain how a fact can be modified.

I see that you either can't read or that you have very selective comprehension.
What I actually wrote was:

Evolution is an observed fact.
The "theory" part is about the details of how it happens - we know that it actually does do so.

You see, if TOE is a fact, then it is an absolute fact that cannot ever be challenged. Yet, I already posted an experiment that proved TOE is refuted by the experiment.

You'll also note that no one has claimed that the TOE is a fact.

So, you are left claiming TOE is both a theory and a fact, which is a contradiction.

This is incorrect.
Evolution is not the theory of evolution any more than gravity is the theory of gravity.

TOE cannot explain abiogenesis

Of course it doesn't.
It's neither intended nor required to do so [sup]1[/sup].
Evolution is about what happens after life started.
Abiogenesis is about how it started.

1 Correction: it is "required" to do so by idiots who don't understand the subject. But they don't count.

 

[paddoboy]

Note to thread.

This should not be a point of contention. TOE cannot explain abiogenesis and in fact no scientific verifiable method can do this.

So, instead of attaching to failed theories, we really do not know what is going on.

In the first place, none of this should be here. Somehow, things emerged from nothing for this place to exist one way or another.

And in the second place, this does not work in any form of reasoning.

Note to chinglu:
Do some science for once in your life.
Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different things. Evolution is not meant to explain Abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is simply explained by chemical reactions, according to conditions which exist.
Evolution is a fact. Bozo up there swinging in the trees, has evolved into you.
Abiogenesis is a fact. Life is here, and probably elsewhere.
Since there is no God, or magic pixie in the sky, and it is unscientific to claim there is, it must have arose some time after the BB from inanimate matter.

The reasoning problem is you.
Remember in an old thread how you were claiming the ticking of a manmade clock was hard-wired to the movements of astronomical bodies?
You were shown to be grossly wrong then.
You at this time are once again, trying to shoe-horn your mythical deity/pixie into invalidating science [SR] and now Evolution and Abiogenesis.
Do you really believe you are impressing anyone? Other than a couple of fellow creationists/God botherers.
The mainstream scientific community accept SR, Evolution and Abiogenesis as fact.
Your error ridden maths and warped interpretations of science in general, and as proved by many on this forum, will not change the fact that these ideas of yours are religiously driven, and not worth a pinch of salt.

Are you are missionary??? Evenagelist???? Out to win over some souls to your mythical cause?
Religion is outdated chinglu...Science has pushed it back and continues to push it back into oblivion where it should be.
It explains nothing, other then give some comfort as opposed to an existence in a Universe where we do not really matter.

 

[chinglu]

It's a scientific theory, as has been pointed out so your claim, while true, is moot and worthless.
Science is not, nor is it predicated upon, mathematical logic.
If you bothered checking you'd find that there's a definition for "theory" as used by mathematical logic and one for the word as used by science as a discipline.
The one is not the other.

What is a scientific theory if it is not a logical theory? That way we can communicate on your terms.

I see that you either can't read or that you have very selective comprehension.
What I actually wrote was:



You'll also note that no one has claimed that the TOE is a fact.

You wrote:

Evolution is an observed fact.

Now, are you claiming there is a difference between an observed fact and a logical fact? If so, explain. That should be amusing.

This is incorrect.
Evolution is not the theory of evolution any more than gravity is the theory of gravity.

TOE (Theory of Evolution) is not a theory?

Of course it doesn't.
It's neither intended nor required to do so [sup]1[/sup].
Evolution is about what happens after life started.
Abiogenesis is about how it started.

1 Correction: it is "required" to do so by idiots who don't understand the subject. But they don't count.

That is where you are wrong.The point of TOE is that modifications can be explained in terms of natural chemical processes. One modification in particular is the natural chemical processes that emerge into life.

 

[chinglu]

Note to chinglu:
Do some science for once in your life.
Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different things. Evolution is not meant to explain Abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is simply explained by chemical reactions, according to conditions which exist.
Evolution is a fact. Bozo up there swinging in the trees, has evolved into you.
Abiogenesis is a fact. Life is here, and probably elsewhere.
Since there is no God, or magic pixie in the sky, and it is unscientific to claim there is, it must have arose some time after the BB from inanimate matter.

The reasoning problem is you.
Remember in an old thread how you were claiming the ticking of a manmade clock was hard-wired to the movements of astronomical bodies?
You were shown to be grossly wrong then.
You at this time are once again, trying to shoe-horn your mythical deity/pixie into invalidating science [SR] and now Evolution and Abiogenesis.
Do you really believe you are impressing anyone? Other than a couple of fellow creationists/God botherers.
The mainstream scientific community accept SR, Evolution and Abiogenesis as fact.
Your error ridden maths and warped interpretations of science in general, and as proved by many on this forum, will not change the fact that these ideas of yours are religiously driven, and not worth a pinch of salt.

Are you are missionary??? Evenagelist???? Out to win over some souls to your mythical cause?
Religion is outdated chinglu...Science has pushed it back and continues to push it back into oblivion where it should be.
It explains nothing, other then give some comfort as opposed to an existence in a Universe where we do not really matter.

Can I help you understand the math in the SR thread?

 

[Dywyddyr]

What is a scientific theory if it is not a logical theory? That way we can communicate on your terms.

A scientific theory is a scientific theory.
Science is NOT mathematical logic.

Now, are you claiming there is a difference between an observed fact and a logical fact? If so, explain. That should be amusing.

What?
Not everything supported by logic is visible in actuality.
Logic is not reality.

TOE (Theory of Evolution) is not a theory?

I wonder why it's called the THEORY of evolution?
You appear to have not understood the difference I noted, with an example, between fact and theory.
Evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution is a theory explaining HOW evolution works.

That is where you are wrong.The point of TOE is that modifications can be explained in terms of natural chemical processes. One modification in particular is the natural chemical processes that emerge into life.

And again.. no.
Evolution concerns itself with things ONLY after the start of life. Not how it arrived.
If you think otherwise then please provide links that support your claim.
And not links from creationist sites attempting to debunk evolution - the scientific parameters of what evolution investigates are set by the people doing that work. Not a bunch of nutcases who don't like (or can't understand) the work.

 

[Aqueous Id]

But wait: that excludes Chinglu.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Can I help you understand the math in the SR thread?

No, but come back when you can.

 

[exchemist]

What is a scientific theory if it is not a logical theory? That way we can communicate on your terms.




You wrote:

Now, are you claiming there is a difference between an observed fact and a logical fact? If so, explain. That should be amusing.



TOE (Theory of Evolution) is not a theory?



That is where you are wrong.The point of TOE is that modifications can be explained in terms of natural chemical processes. One modification in particular is the natural chemical processes that emerge into life.

That's just wrong. Creationists are fond of conflating abiogenesis with evolution, but it is just a dishonest rhetorical trick.

They like to popularise terms such as "molecule to man" evolution, in an attempt to pretend that the theory of evolution somehow depends on abiogenesis. This would be convenient for them, because of course there is no established theory of abiogenesis, so it would allow them to pretend that this somehow undermines the foundations of evolution.

But it's cock. Darwin had no theory of abiogenesis at all, yet that did not stop him. Evolution is the theory if how one species of organism gives rise over time to others. It is about the origin of species, not the origin of life.

In a similar way, the theory of the lifecycle of stars does not depend for its validity on the theory of the Big Bang. And organic chemistry does not depend on the accuracy of the theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus.

Creationists have been told this time and again, but their cheerleaders persist in propagating this falsehood.

 

[Dinosaur]

Some Nit-Picking.

TOE has been used for quite some time to mean: Theory Of Everything, not Theory Of Evolution.

In the context of this Thread, it will not be misunderstood. In other contexts, it could be misleading if you expect it to refer to evolution.

 

[chinglu]

A scientific theory is a scientific theory.
Science is NOT mathematical logic.


What?
Not everything supported by logic is visible in actuality.
Logic is not reality.


I wonder why it's called the THEORY of evolution?
You appear to have not understood the difference I noted, with an example, between fact and theory.
Evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution is a theory explaining HOW evolution works.


And again.. no.
Evolution concerns itself with things ONLY after the start of life. Not how it arrived.
If you think otherwise then please provide links that support your claim.
And not links from creationist sites attempting to debunk evolution - the scientific parameters of what evolution investigates are set by the people doing that work. Not a bunch of nutcases who don't like (or can't understand) the work.

1) Science theories are a posteriori or a priori. TOE is a priori and is therefore a theory that claims postulates. For example, postulate (1) Life is modified by random mutation and then natural selection.

A posteriori science is strictly based on verifiable experimentation that can be reproduced.

Therefore, TOE is a logical theory as I said.

2) Perhaps you should define evolution. Do you mean creatures must always change?

3) You say evolution only concerns itself with events after life arrived. TOE must concern itself with all. So, are you claiming TOE has nothing to do with evolution? Specifically, how do you separate these 2?

 

[chinglu]

That's just wrong. Creationists are fond of conflating abiogenesis with evolution, but it is just a dishonest rhetorical trick.

They like to popularise terms such as "molecule to man" evolution, in an attempt to pretend that the theory of evolution somehow depends on abiogenesis. This would be convenient for them, because of course there is no established theory of abiogenesis, so it would allow them to pretend that this somehow undermines the foundations of evolution.

But it's cock. Darwin had no theory of abiogenesis at all, yet that did not stop him. Evolution is the theory if how one species of organism gives rise over time to others. It is about the origin of species, not the origin of life.

In a similar way, the theory of the lifecycle of stars does not depend for its validity on the theory of the Big Bang. And organic chemistry does not depend on the accuracy of the theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus.

Creationists have been told this time and again, but their cheerleaders persist in propagating this falsehood.

You are totally ignorant.

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. However, analysis of some other texts written by Darwin, and of the correspondence he exchanged with friends and colleagues demonstrates that he took for granted the possibility of a natural emergence of the first life forms.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

 

[Dywyddyr]

1) Science theories are a posteriori or a priori. TOE is a priori and is therefore a theory that claims postulates. For example, postulate (1) Life is modified by random mutation and then natural selection.
A posteriori science is strictly based on verifiable experimentation that can be reproduced.

SFW?

Therefore, TOE is a logical theory as I said.

But NOT one of mathematical logic, which was your specific claim.

2) Perhaps you should define evolution. Do you mean creatures must always change?
3) You say evolution only concerns itself with events after life arrived. TOE must concern itself with all.

Yes I see.
You prefer to keep making the claim that TOE must include how life started.
But you still haven't provided a single shred of support for that claim.
There is ZERO reason for the TOE to include how life started (despite your unsupported claim), this is an invention, either of your own of some creation nutcase who doesn't know what he's talking about.

So, are you claiming TOE has nothing to do with evolution?

I'm not sure whether this is ignorance and the inability to read/ parse/ comprehend what I wrote or deliberate dishonesty. Perhaps you can find where where I stated (or even implied) that and link to my words.

 

[wellwisher]

The reason it is important to know how life begin, is to see if any of these same variables continue to have an impact on future change. If you leave out the origin the curve can become biased high or low, or left or right and not know the difference. The only variable there from the beginning and still playing a major role within life, is water. Water was there when only small gases existed, even before animo acids began to form from water and simple gases, etc.

If we start in the middle, such as at replicators, will we make this the central variable. We then have to depend on random things to fill the gaps which the theory can't explain to the level need by the doubters. Any layers from the origin are not seen as important i random can be used to fill in the gaps.

For example, all replicator theories depend on hydrogen bonding between base pairs so there are templates. Where did the hydrogen bonding come from that makes the template process possible? It had to do with reactions that involve water.

If we mix or agitate water and oil, to get an emulsion, we will increase the system entropy (disorder). This system will not retain this high level of entropy but rather it will phase separate back into two layers, thereby defining lowered entropy. This has to do with free energy.

Since the entropy of the universe needs to increase over time, one way to get these two layers to blend, in a more permanent way, is if the organic or oil layer takes on more water like properties, while the water layer takes on more organic like properties. Hydrogen bonding is one way for the organics to take on more water like properties, with DNA the most hydrated molecules in life.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The reason it is important to know how life begin, is to see if any of these same variables continue to have an impact on future change. If you leave out the origin the curve can become biased high or low, or left or right and not know the difference.

The "origin of the curve" as far as evolution is concerned is life from when it started: not HOW it was started.
To use the kind of largely naff analogy that you resort to so often: your argument here is the equivalent of claiming that Grand Prix results don't mean anything because they don't take into account the design and construction processes of the cars involved.

 

[wellwisher]

The "origin of the curve" as far as evolution is concerned is life from when it started: not HOW it was started.
To use the kind of largely naff analogy that you resort to so often: your argument here is the equivalent of claiming that Grand Prix results don't mean anything because they don't take into account the design and construction processes of the cars involved.

The analogy I see is like starting the origins of the automobile with the 1920 Lincoln, and not the horse and buggy. The 1920 Lincoln is in the middle and has features that took decades to develop, and did not just appear like a lottery jackpot. That POV needs fuzzy math.

If we start with the 1920 Lincoln, it will bias the mind. Cars continued to evolve in 1920, building on what came before with many things staying the same; four tires. Other things are added as new. The 1920 Lincoln had both of these at the same time.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The analogy I see is like starting the origins of the automobile with the 1920 Lincoln, and not the horse and buggy.

If you include the horse & buggy then, by definition, you aren't studying automobiles.
"How did we get to the automobile" is NOT a study of them.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The analogy I see is like starting the origins of the automobile with the 1920 Lincoln, and not the horse and buggy.

If you include the horse & buggy then, by definition, you aren't studying automobiles.
"How did we get to the automobile" is NOT a study of them.

Dywyddyr, you "quoted" wellwisherrs statement where he clearly says "origins of the automobile".

In any "study" of the "origins of the automobile", or Horseless Carriage, would it not seem that the "origins of the automobile" may have begun with the search for a replacement for the "horse & buggy"?