New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

[Jack_]

That's not a very good description of the process of species diverging over time, as they become geographically separated and adapt to local conditions.

There are initial conditions for evolution: one is the existence of a species, the other is environmental conditions, which provide the natural selection--in essence this "forces" the DNA of a species to diverge and radiate. All the different species are related by having had a common ancestor before populations with the ancestral genes got separated.

Insufficient. You must specifically define the inital conditions.

 

[Trippy]

James please cite your sources on this?

Using electrical sparks as energy (lightening) I can create amino acids (among other things) the essential ingredients in life.
Self replicating strands of RNA have been created (as in the step before DNA).

Trippy, to date, NOBODY has been able to create all “left handed” amino acids which are necessary to create something living. All living things (that are alive) are composed of “left handed” amino acids. Science (to date) has NOT been able to replicate this.

Once again, you're assuming that DNA or RNA must neccessarily have been the 'first step' and that there couldn't possibly have been simpler precursors that gave rise to it.
RNA: Prebiotic Product, or Biotic Invention?
Miller-Urey Experiment on Wiki
RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension

 

[Trippy]

Man, value in this case means the ability to operate chemically.

Why do I have to explain everything?

Nonsensical bollocks.

 

[noodler]

Jack_: I take it you are referring to the problem of whether a number can be computed, compared to whether a computer can output a number in a finite time...?

Or the BIG question--where did the first computer come from, who thought of the first way to add, subtract etc, and calculate with numbers? Was it when we picked up (counted) rocks and made sharp tools with them? Was it when we started keeping animals, or when the first grain surpluses appeared..?

Then, did humans "invent" numbers and calculating, or is this a natural part of the universe--the universe must "count" human beings, right?

 

[Trippy]

Trippy, now in the case of the Galapagos island and the birds there, this is indeed natural selection. But here is the kicker… natural selection is NOT EVOLUTION! When the DNA of the birds are analyzed they are still the same and match with others of the same species. In other words, nothing has changed. The only thing that is changed in the birds is possibly their beaks or other small features which have changed to adapt to the food or weather recourses on that island. Nothing more! They are still the same bird… nothing truly has changed.

Incorrect.
Natural selection is a theory of Evolution.
Natural selection is one theory of how Evolution occurs.

(incidentally, I wasn't referring Darwin's finches but a process that happens, IIRC in the space of a couple of generations on, IIRC, one of the Islands in particular - the full details escape me, and I don't have the book in front of me).

 

[Jack_]

Once again, you're assuming that DNA or RNA must neccessarily have been the 'first step' and that there couldn't possibly have been simpler precursors that gave rise to it.
RNA: Prebiotic Product, or Biotic Invention?
Miller-Urey Experiment on Wiki
RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension

wrong again.

you said rna is first and thus you refute you own argument.

I said you need a cell and yet the cell also needs dna.

It is chicken and egg.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The initial properties are not my problem, they are yours and that of science.

That doesn't answer my question nor does claiming it is "a problem" make it one.

If they cannot specify them, then science cannot possibly predict the next step even as a probabilistic function.

Well, science can and does.

Science often takes a look at "what is", "what was", and makes models that predict future and past outcomes. I suspect what you consider "initial properties" are really the here and now.

I am simply stating a fact of logic that the religion of science does not obey and violates the initial condition logic.

For something to be a fact is has to be clearly observable. The assertion you made doesn't quite make sense yet so maybe you can paraphrase it so it becomes clear and observable.

 

[Jack_]

Jack_: I take it you are referring to the problem of whether a number can be computed, compared to whether a computer can output a number in a finite time...?

Or the BIG question--where did the first computer come from, who thought of the first way to add, subtract etc, and calculate with numbers? Was it when we picked up (counted) rocks and made sharp tools with them? Was it when we started keeping animals, or when the first grain surpluses appeared..?

Then, did humans "invent" numbers and calculating, or is this a natural part of the universe--the universe must "count" human beings, right?

I take it you are referring to the problem of whether a number can be computed, compared to whether a computer can output a number in a finite time...?

no,

this is the halting problem.

I am talking about the initial conditions of a theory.

TOE just says natural selection and proceeds from there.

Well, you need an object that will respond to that logic, no?

This initial object is what is missing.

 

[Trippy]

wrong again.

you said rna is first and thus you refute you own argument.

I said you need a cell and yet the cell also needs dna.

It is chicken and egg.

Liar. No I didn't. Here's what I actually said.

Self replicating strands of RNA have been created (as in the step before DNA).

RNA being the step before DNA in no way implies that it must be the first step in the process.

As for cells needing DNA...
Virii use RNA and mRNA (although some do use DNA as well, or instead of RNA).

And it's far from chicken and egg.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Wrong, logic is a skeleton to evaluate nature.

Incorrect. Logic is a human abstraction of basic observable relationships.

All of your junk science must adhere and submit to its rules.

Incorrect. I can produce correct logical statements that are incorrect in reality.

Clearly, science missed a meeting.

Science isn't sapient and cannot attend meetings. It is a process used by humans to understand reality.

 

[Jack_]

That doesn't answer my question nor does claiming it is "a problem" make it one.

Yes, the initial conditions are an issue.

Say, you wanted life to be a hunk of lead as a starting point.

Would your silly theory hold up?

Science often takes a look at "what is", "what was", and makes models that predict future and past outcomes. I suspect what you consider "initial properties" are really the here and now.

From my POV you are evaluating my thinking from your standards.

I would never write this.

 

[noodler]

I am talking about the initial conditions of a theory.

Ok, but the initial conditions for life and evolution, were presumably chemical and geographical, in some way we still don't know the details of--it could be that life evolved initially around ocean vents, say, or any number of extreme environments.

But the halting problem with this scenario is this: when does "random" chemical reactions become organized, self assembling biochemistry? In other words "when did the abiogenic computer print a biochemical number, and how long did it take...?"

So I think you may have missed the first act of the play here, pal.

 

[Jack_]

Liar. No I didn't. Here's what I actually said.

Calm down.

I was referring to your post #254 that has no possible validation.

 

[Trippy]

Ok, but the initial conditions for life and evolution, were presumably chemical and geographical, in some way we still don't know the details of--it could be that life evolved initially around ocean vents, say, or any number of extreme environments.

There are a number of theories.
RNA world
Metabolism first
Radioactive Beach
Ocean Vent

To name a few.

 

[Jack_]

Incorrect. Logic is a human abstraction of basic observable relationships.



Incorrect. I can produce correct logical statements that are incorrect in reality.

.

Incorrect. Logic is a human abstraction of basic observable relationships.

Incorrect. I can produce correct logical statements that are incorrect in reality.

Can you see you contradict yourself?

 

[Jack_]

Ok, but the initial conditions for life and evolution, were presumably chemical and geographical, in some way we still don't know the details of--it could be that life evolved initially around ocean vents, say, or any number of extreme environments.

But the halting problem with this scenario is this: when does "random" chemical reactions become organized, self assembling biochemistry? In other words "when did the abiogenic computer print a biochemical number, and how long did it take...?"

So I think you may have missed the first act of the play here, pal.

Is that right?

Specify the properties of the first life so we may test and make sure all the logic of TOE applies.

Let me know.

 

[Trippy]

Calm down.

I was referring to your post #254 that has no possible validation.

You mean this post?

For one thing, that you are ridiculously wrong.

Abiogenesis & Evolution



Abiogenesis—Origins of Life Research

Abiogenesis on Wiki

In which I still DON'T claim that RNA must have been the first step (thus meaning you are still a liar as it's not a claim I have made).

 

[Jack_]

OK, got to go.

I do not belong here.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It is the case that computers are turing machines and thus an implementation of recursive functions.

Maybe from the standpoint that a turning machine demonstrates that any mathematical operation can be automated; however, not from a literal implementation. Computers dont read in individual characters on a piece of tape.

Additionally while computers can utilize recursion, they are not recursive by nature. They are state based. As I recall, it is not uncommon for an implementation of a real turning machine to be state based as well.

However, we are dealing with the initial conditions of which a computer must be programmed.

That is what we are talking about when dealing with TOE.

Let's narrow the scope of what it is you are asking or tyring to discuss. Are you trying to undstand how life started, how evolution works, something different?

 

[Anita Meyer]

Noodler,

Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Now in the case of the Galapagos island and the birds there, this is indeed natural selection. But here is the kicker… natural selection is NOT EVOLUTION! When the DNA of the birds are analyzed they are still the same and match with others of the same species. In other words, nothing has changed. ”

That's not a very good description of the process of species diverging over time, as they become geographically separated and adapt to local conditions.

There are initial conditions for evolution: one is the existence of a species, the other is environmental conditions, which provide the natural selection--in essence this "forces" the DNA of a species to diverge and radiate. All the different species are related by having had a common ancestor before populations with the ancestral genes got separated.

So the real kicker is that this explains why there are so many related species, genetically as well as related in external form and function (i.e. niche). Unfortunately Noah doesn't cut it, and nor does the Grand Canyon

.

I’ve already had this conversation here concerning this, and this is what I said: Natural Selection is not evolution. Let me explain to you why… As the evolutionists theory goes, the environment plays a large role in this, as well as sex (female choice). But here is the thing, we don’t find the evidences for this in the fossil record. I have found that many people don’t think this through logically concerning "natural selection". Natural selection is actually a loss of information. In fact it’s the “opposite” of evolution since living things are being segregated and then isolated moving to different parts of the Earth. What’s actually happening here is that these creatures are loosing information in their DNA (as you split up these populations and some die). You see over a period of time natural selection results in loss of information, specialization (adaptation or condition in response to environmental conditions), eventually getting to the stage where they cant interbreed anymore.

Using electrical sparks as energy (lightening) I can create amino acids (among other things) the essential ingredients in life.
Self replicating strands of RNA have been created (as in the step before DNA).

Once again, you're assuming that DNA or RNA must neccessarily have been the 'first step' and that there couldn't possibly have been simpler precursors that gave rise to it.
RNA: Prebiotic Product, or Biotic Invention?
Miller-Urey Experiment on Wiki
RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension

Your not telling me anything new. Man still cannot create all “left handed” amino acids necessary for life.

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Trippy, now in the case of the Galapagos island and the birds there, this is indeed natural selection. But here is the kicker… natural selection is NOT EVOLUTION! When the DNA of the birds are analyzed they are still the same and match

with others of the same species. In other words, nothing has changed. The only thing that is changed in the birds is possibly their beaks or other small features which have changed to adapt to the food or weather recourses on that island. Nothing more! They are still the same bird… nothing truly has changed. ”

Incorrect.
Natural selection is a theory of Evolution.
Natural selection is one theory of how Evolution occurs.

(incidentally, I wasn't referring Darwin's finches but a process that happens, IIRC in the space of a couple of generations on, IIRC, one of the Islands in particular - the full details escape me, and I don't have the book in front of me).

No, again as I just posted to Noodler “Natural Selection” is not Evolution.



Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html