The God of Science

[iceaura]

I was talking about 'observed' life - you can talk hypothetical stuff but as far as we know about life so far it is complex at even the basal level- how that complexity came from simplicity is another question.

You were claiming to be able to observe life at its "basal" level.

I simply pointed out that you can't. Your hypothesis that the smallest living beings you can observe nowdays are some kind of "primitive" or "basal" forms of life is contradicted by all available evidence and even the most ordinary, uncontroversial reasoning.

 

[GeoffP]

I don't know how many researchers are still researching e. coli- not so complex compared to humans but complex enough that we have spent so much time on it but still haven't been able to learn everything about it.

Peace be unto you

Actually, we've been able to learn a stunning amount of information about it. I bolded your statement above because it needed more examination: this "so much time" corresponds, actually, to a few decades. This is not a lot of time for any organism; it took them millions or hundreds of millions of years to form. The critics of evolutionary theory invariable point to the vast amounts of time that evolutionists have had to form their arguments; in the greatest case, this is only a hundred and fifty years. Real evolutionary science (under the neoDarwinian theorem) only started in the last hundred years.

 

[GeoffP]

I know what he was saying..... But I was simply clarifying that an actual cell wall was needed for the molecules to 'escape'.

Peace be unto you

Cellular membrane at that level, most likely. Walls are more for tough plant cells needed to support metacellular/metatissue organisms.

Peace be unto you.

 

[786]

Cellular membrane at that level, most likely. Walls are more for tough plant cells needed to support metacellular/metatissue organisms.

Peace be unto you.

My bad... wrong word usage, I should know better I'm taking Plant Anatomy class currently Yes Cell membrane is the proper word.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Actually, we've been able to learn a stunning amount of information about it.

True, I was only giving E. Coli as an example to allude to the fact that life is complex, as a response to iceaura.... otherwise I do agree with what you said.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

You were claiming to be able to observe life at its "basal" level.

I simply pointed out that you can't. Your hypothesis that the smallest living beings you can observe nowdays are some kind of "primitive" or "basal" forms of life is contradicted by all available evidence and even the most ordinary, uncontroversial reasoning.

I was calling the most primitive as 'basal'- you have to realize that the word 'basal' changes depending on what more 'basal' organisms you find. So currently the most 'basal' life form is really quite complex. The word 'basal' is used in a lot of biology books as well.

I agree with you that we don't know the real basal life, but what currently scientists call a 'basal' life is complex- which we can observe- otherwise I do understand what you are trying to say. I'm using the word basal as currently used by scientists to describe primitive species.

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

I agree with you that we don't know the real basal life, but what currently scientists call a 'basal' life is complex-

"Scientists" don't talk like that.

That's a fundie religious argument, sometimes used by Intelligent Design advocates and similar folks.

Concentrate on the fact that you don't know what the early, "basal" forms of life were like - and therefore you cannot draw conclusions from their nature. You can reasonably infer likelihoods about their nature - that they were far less complex and sophisticated than anything we know today, for example - but not from it, see?

 

[GeoffP]

Quite so.

You have to recall 786 that the simple forms of life today were still derived from those ancient, ancient forms. They're likely similar in many ways - in the way that an ancient lizard might be related to ones of today, and so forth.

 

[786]

"Scientists" don't talk like that.

That's a fundie religious argument, sometimes used by Intelligent Design advocates and similar folks.

Concentrate on the fact that you don't know what the early, "basal" forms of life were like - and therefore you cannot draw conclusions from their nature. You can reasonably infer likelihoods about their nature - that they were far less complex and sophisticated than anything we know today, for example - but not from it, see?

Maybe that is a stereotype... because I have taken maybe more than 12 science classes so far , and 1 specifically on Evolution Systematics and they do use the word 'basal' to refer to the most primitive life forms that we know currently, and also to refer to the most primitive specie under a family- when we look at phylogenies.

And I was talking about the most 'basal' life form we know of, which is complex. Otherwise I do know that if we come from some hot soup then it was probably not complex to begin with.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm puzzled over your claim that 'basal life' is a common term used by biologists. I did a search for this on Google scholar and it turned up barely fifty hits. None of them on page 1 appeared to be using basal life in the sense you intend.
As a control I checked abiogenesis and 'origin of life', which turned up 1640 and 32000 hits repsectively.
Would you cite some instances where the term is used by bona fide biologists please.

 

[786]

I'm puzzled over your claim that 'basal life' is a common term used by biologists. I did a search for this on Google scholar and it turned up barely fifty hits. None of them on page 1 appeared to be using basal life in the sense you intend.
As a control I checked abiogenesis and 'origin of life', which turned up 1640 and 32000 hits repsectively.
Would you cite some instances where the term is used by bona fide biologists please.

I said:

"they do use the word 'basal' to refer to the most primitive life forms that we know currently, and also to refer to the most primitive specie under a family- when we look at phylogenies."

Here is an example from primary literature.

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/6/997

Here is one primary literature, I've specifically clicked on the section that explains 'basal':
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/45/4/585#SEC2

What I was saying was that basal life forms, in other words the species that are at the beginning of the phylogeny- root- which by standard convention would also be 'primitive'- Maybe I was a bit unclear when I first said this. And anyways you're asking me for names of scientists who are bona fide I don't know who you trust so I've just presented primary literature, and I was referring to the professors at UW- at least they have used this terminology.

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

What I was saying was that basal life forms, in other words the species that are at the beginning of the phylogeny- root- which by standard convention would also be 'primitive'

You were drawing conclusions not from some alleged "convention" of reference, but from some alleged actually simplest or most primitive nature of these long-evolved, sophisticated organisms.

A reminder, from your link:

We concur with Krell and Cranston (2004)Go that taxa should not be identified as more (or less) basal than others,

 

[786]

You were drawing conclusions not from some alleged "convention" of reference, but from some alleged actually simplest or most primitive nature of these long-evolved, sophisticated organisms.

I was talking about known forms of life, which as far as we know are complex.

A reminder, from your link:

They are talking in technicalities that something being 'basal' changes, as it depends on how resolved a phylogeny is. I was talking about the root of the phylogeny, which can be highly resolved and can be called 'basal'. Secondly it is used by scientists which is the reason they said this- so it proves that I didn't come up with the idea.

Anyways lets not get caught in the technicality of something being basal or not- I'm simply saying all known forms of live, however primitive they may be, are complex.

Peace be unto you

 

[Gustav]

II'm simply saying all known forms of live, however primitive they may be, are complex.

a meaningless statement
with reference to what?
what is the point of comparison?

 

[iceaura]

I was talking about known forms of life, which as far as we know are complex.

And you were drawing conclusions as if from unknown earlier forms of life, which we have every reason to think were simple.

They are talking in technicalities that something being 'basal' changes, as it depends on how resolved a phylogeny is. I was talking about the root of the phylogeny, which can be highly resolved and can be called 'basal'. Secondly it is used by scientists which is the reason they said this- so it proves that I didn't come up with the idea.

As youjsut pointed out, you are using the word in a different way, and not talking about what those scientists are talking about. You are attempting to talk about early, primitive, ancestral, evolutionarily "basal" forms of life, but pretending modern complex beings provide you with examples.

I'm simply saying all known forms of live, however primitive they may be, are complex.

And I am going to continue to point out that you don't know any primitive forms of life. So you can't draw any conclusions based on observing primitive forms of life.

 

[kerux]

Take the root out of "god"

remember that "god" is taken from

"God \God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p.p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. (source http://dict.die.net/god)

And what is "invoke"?
invoke v 1: evoke or call forth, with or as if by magic:

Remember the prioritized meaning is to "CALL" forth, with or as if by MAGIC, and what is MAGIC?

OF COURSE, it's the adjective form of "magi" which simply means "wise men" or men with WIT [Wit from OE. witen, pres. ich wot, wat, I know (wot), imp. wiste, AS. witan, pres. w[=a]t, imp. wiste, wisse; akin to OFries. wita, OS. witan, D. weten, G. wissen, OHG. wizzan, Icel. vita, Sw. veta, Dan. vide, Goth. witan to observe, wait I know, Russ. vidiete to see, L.
videre, Gr. ?, Skr. vid to know, learn; cf. Skr. vid to find.
????.]
So if you have God or god, it means you call forth, you being a "finder", an "observer" , and a "learner." NO WONDER this earth is so "called" as EARTH, because the recipient of your VOICE when you invoke is none other than an EAR.

 

[Ophiolite]

Maybe I was a bit unclear when I first said this. And anyways you're asking me for names of scientists who are bona fide I don't know who you trust so I've just presented primary literature,

Primary literature was what I was after. I've not been aware of this usage before. Your links were helpful. Thank you.

 

[786]

And I am going to continue to point out that you don't know any primitive forms of life. So you can't draw any conclusions based on observing primitive forms of life.

Ok I understand your point, instead of dragging on with this its better that we get back on the original thread topic....anyways thanks to my response to GeoffP we're way off topic..

Lets get back on topic... I believe the last response I gave was to JamesR on randomness..... so lets continue with the topic of randomness shall we.

Peace be unto you

 

[swarm]

I'm simply saying all known forms of live, however primitive they may be, are complex.

All known forms of life are also 3.5 billion years into their development.

But "complex" is pretty relative don't you think?

Prions for example aren't particularly complex as "life" goes. Also we've only just learned where to look for really simple life forms. They need externally accessible proton gradients and effectively external cell walls - as we've just found in certain volcanic rock formations.

More details - an excellent read:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...aming-stone-life-began-in-rock.html?full=true

Since life in the environment as it currently is has to either be self contained or survive off self contained life forms - its hardly any surprise a certain level of complexity is required.

 

[swarm]

I believe the last response I gave was to JamesR on randomness..... so lets continue with the topic of randomness shall we.

What do you mean by randomness and how would it be relevant?