Noooooooo I articulated - Artificial Intelligence is being constructed, not sure best description but appears to be more pithy than A computer so loaded with information it almost appears Intelligent Ànd noooooooo Don't think so YES This one? Well learn something every day Care to list ANY naturally occurring examples? Oh look what I just come across, a naturally occurring equation. No idea what it means though Oh look there's another one Look I'm bored with inventing mathematics, considering all these natural occuring mathematics laying around I'm going over there. That THING I will invent a word TREE hence forth it will carry that name I invented Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You really do not need to pray (to whom?) for me to tell, ask nicely is enough Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You can protest all you want. It changes nothing. In fact you are so behind the times of AI. The word "almost appears" has long disappeared. It is now "appears Intelligent", i.e. able to make autonomous decisions. Yesssssss, you recommended the name, live with it. Make up your mind, yes or no? The one that was posed. You still haven't answered. From what and by what means and then just inventing a random meaningless symbol, without observation or reference to a natural phenomenon? You mean invent a random word every day? Is that what you identify as scientific? Yet you are accusing me of inventing a symbolic word....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are kidding......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would advise you select another area of study other than science.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But if you like, here is a neat one about water. How does water come to be a solid, a liquid, or a vapor? And how does a snowflake form from a water droplet and why are snowflakes all different from each other? Are you trying to define Science? Seems to me that the one about water (the stuff we must have to live) would be a lifetime worth of study OK, IN SHORT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science A good start for inventing symbolic representations to provide a short-hand notation of what it is we are studying and trying to describe how it works, wouldn't you say? And developing a symbolic language (mathematics) to identify and catalogue (verb) the observed Natural phenomena in the broadest sense as well as in he finest detail. The three symbolic words "biology, chemistry, and physics" are the categorical disciplines encountered in the Natural sciences . Science is the "STUDY" of these natural phenomena. And mathematics is the functional language that allows us to create symbolic models of the relational causal actions and reactions. Relational values and mathematical equations are mathematical processes, also generalized as "Input--> Function--> Output" I think you have this precisely backwards. It is more like; "look why does this apple fall to the ground instead of up into the sky"? Remember that one? Science is definitely not for you. You just do not seem to have the patience required for all those numbers and equations. What THING? That thing you are observing growing out of the ground towards the sunlight? Or that fire that comes down from the sky? Or that big bright ball in the sky that comes up over here and then disappears over there?[/quote] LOL.....that is YOUR argument. "Mathematics is a Human invention" are your words! You are so predictable ....., me pray to anything? I knew you'd comment on that....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I say I can and have at least twice, maybe more. He is saying, at best, that no new science in relation to Abiogenesis and evolution will ever change his mind re his literal interpretation of the bible. That little titbit alone leaves your claims re his supposed "infallibility" in tatters, not to mention the rejection by other more qualified scientists.
Repeating from an earlier post; that so-called 'admission' was preceded with IF. The small word with a big meaning. His exposes make it clear IF effectively becomes 'will never happen'. Quote anyone including me as having claimed Tour is infallible. Like Write4U you are prone to just making up BS assertions. This becomes tiresome to deal with.
You got proof? I (and IMO, paddo) have provided convincing verifiable (axiomatic) proof of a "necessary" abiogenetic process. It is you who is making up BS assertions based on flawed science by a couple of minor scientists with a debunked agenda of an "unnecessary" concept of ID and "irreducible complexity". Your persistent lack of providing scientifically acceptable proof is the single thing that has become tiresome.
Ducking the question by changing topic and making bald assertions. You have a reputation for that sort of thing. Never admitting to error. A very bad character flaw.
Let me remind you that it is you who resorted to ad hominem in your post #386 in response to a perfectly on-topic posit to the question of Chemical Evolution and why this must have occurred by a process of Abiogenesis. There are five false ad hominem contained in that single sentence. A very bad character flaw!!! It is you who is ducking the question, despite your persistent clinging to demonstrated flawed claims by repeatedly discredited "scientists" . Your blind belief in the proposition of an Intelligent Designer and "irreducible complexity" is not scientific but theistic and is wholly off topic in a Science thread about Biology and Genetics. If you wish to inform yourself about Chemical Evolution, I have given you several links to THE recognized scientific authority on the subject of cosmological abiogenetic chemical (mineral) evolution. This has nothing to do with any tangent side issues that may have been raised, such as your introduction of religion into a scientific subject. You are the one introducing wholly irrelevant side issues and making bald assertions of truth as told by a couple of snake-oil salesmen with a demonstrated agenda. You cannot lay your refusal to inform yourself of legitimate scientific sources at my doorstep. The negligence lies in your back yard. Clean it up before you comment on the state of my back yard......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If, but, maybe, perhaps, is that all you have q-reeus? This man by his own words, even accepts Adam and Eve! I mean even some of our online religious members reluctantly reject that. The fact that you put faith in this person, is saying more about yourself then him. Not at all, despite your continued bottom of the barrel scraping. You have claimed that Tour is correct in this subject and dismissed all other more reputable critique. Are you finally admitting he is wrong, and not infallible in his crusade and preaching against the only scientific answer for the arising of life? And in favour of some unscientific, silly IDer/creator of which we have SFA evidence. So, no bullshit assertions at all, just plain old observational data from his own mouth none the less..
Here's another article re Abiogenesis and the only scientific answer to how life arose.............................. https://www.sciencealert.com/life-c...he-universe-just-not-in-our-neck-of-the-woods New Paper Suggests Life Could Be Common Across The Universe, Just Not Near Us: EVAN GOUGH, UNIVERSE TODAY 14 MARCH 2020 The building blocks of life can, and did, spontaneously assemble under the right conditions. That's called spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis. Of course, many of the details remain hidden to us, and we just don't know exactly how it all happened. Or how frequently it could happen. The world's religions have different ideas of how life appeared, of course, and they invoke the magical hands of various supernatural deities to explain it all. But those explanations, while colorful tales, leave many of us unsatisfied. 'How did life arise' is one of life's most compelling questions, and one that science continually wrestles with. Tomonori Totani is one scientist who finds that question compelling. Totani is a professor of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. He's written a new paper titled Emergence of life in an inflationary universe. It's published in Nature Scientific Reports. Totani's work leans heavily on a couple concepts. The first is the vast age and size of the Universe, how it's inflated over time, and how likely events are to occur. The second is RNA; specifically, how long a chain of nucleotides needs to be in order to "expect a self-replicating activity" as the paper says. Totani's work, like almost all work on abiogenesis, looks at the basic components of life on Earth: RNA, or ribonucleic acid. DNA sets the rules for how individual life forms take shape, but DNA is much more complex than RNA. more.............. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; The paper from whence this article arose was given earlier.....
https://www.sciencealert.com/life-c...he-universe-just-not-in-our-neck-of-the-woods EXTRACT: When cosmologists add up the number of stars in the observable Universe with the number of stars in the unobservable Universe, the resulting number is 10^100 Sun-like stars. That means there is much more matter in play, and the abiogenic creation of long enough chains of RNA is not only possible, but probable, or even inevitable.
https://futurism.com/abiogenesis-theory-origins-life Abiogenesis: A Theory on The Origins of Life EXTRACT: In a number of papers, physicists have argued that the occurrence of life is a matter of inevitability, and they have a sound formula to support their claims. The new(ish) models that physicists have come up with are formulated on previously established theories in physics, and they conclude that matter will generally develop into systems that, when “driven by an external source of energy” and “surrounded by a heat bath,” become increasingly efficient at dissipating energy. This sounds a little tricky, so let’s break it down. In order to understand the theory, you need to understand the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy or the “arrow of time.” The second law states, “The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” To put it very bluntly, entropy means that things fall apart. Hot things cool off, gas will diffuse through air, a house crumbles but does not instantaneously add on a new kitchen. Thus, as previously stated, things fall apart; they spread out; energy tends to diffuse as time progresses. Entropy is basically a measure of this tendency. We know that, on the whole, entropy always increases (that things spread apart) because of a simple matter of probability: There are more ways for energy to be spread out than for it to be concentrated. Thus, as particles in a system move around and interact, they will, through sheer chance, tend to adopt configurations in which the energy is spread out. This is where the formula comes in. MIT physicist Jeremy England explains, “We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there [for example, think about how the overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates. This means clumps of atoms surrounded by a bath at some temperature, like the atmosphere or the ocean, should tend over time to arrange themselves to resonate better and better with the sources of mechanical, electromagnetic or chemical work in their environments.” Self-replication (or reproduction, in biological terms), the process that drives the evolution of life on Earth, is one such mechanism by which a system might dissipate an increasing amount of energy over time. As England put it, “A great way of dissipating more is to make more copies of yourself.” MUCH MORE AT LINK................
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2009/szostak/facts/ Jack W. Szostak The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2009 Born: 9 November 1952, London, United Kingdom Affiliation at the time of the award: Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Prize motivation: "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase."
Self-organization of a cell by affinity and aversion to water of the polar ends of compound molecules . This is demonstrated in this Robert Hazen video @ 21:10
Not knowledge - argument. And show, right here - no hiding behind videos, no appeals to authority. So you can easily argue against my posts - if they are in fact wrong, or missing something. Behe's argument in his first book (Darwin's Black Box) is deeply silly. If he's knowledgable, so much the worse - less excuse. Briefly: Any complexity is reducible, by definition of the word "complex" - the argument for irreducibility in biological systems rests on the loss of ability to perform a particular function or fulfill a certain purpose. Darwinian evolutionary theory explicitly and specifically denies any necessary role for purpose or pre-selected function. So Behe is off on the wrong foot immediately. Transcript or forget it. Behe has made enough money flogging his bs all over the fundie universe I read Behe's first book. He based his entire argument on assumed purpose, a priori designated functions for all biological systems. That's not only goofy, but specifically, completely, and famously irrelevant to Darwinian evolution in particular - the denial of direction, purpose, pre-defined function, etc, in the evolution of biological systems, is one of the most striking and well-known and characteristic features of Darwinian theory. Example: He spends a chapter trying to convince people that because the human blood clotting mechanism is very complex and made of interdependent parts that only clot blood as components of a finely balanced system, it could not have evolved - it doesn't clot blood, says Behe, except as a complete system, whose evolution would require a one-step chance event of wild improbability; there is no possible simpler blood clotting mechanism for it to have evolved from, step by step, as Darwinian theory requires (according to Behe). That is 1) false (there are several varieties and degrees of hemophilia, for example, depending on what exactly the problem is, and some are survivable into middle and old age even in modern humans - a simpler organism could plausibly survive with even less complexity in its blood clotting - ) 2) dumb (the evolutionary paths of the various components of the current system don't necessarily involve blood or its clotting at all, and that is a famous and common feature of Darwinian evolutionary paths - Darwinian theory does not involve purpose or direction.) 3) yet another piece of evidence for my two most frequently posted claims about Darwinian theory - that despite its simplicity it's far more difficult to grasp than most people assume, and that nobody who rejects it understands it.
Is the Blood Clotting Cascade "Irreducibly Complex?" Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 http://millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html
Main article: Evolution of flagella Flagella and the intelligent design debate Main articles: Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#: p.s. lest we forget the role of microtubules in the evolution of the flagellum Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course MT are self-assembling structures that require only 2 components (tubulin dimer).
Behe points out that the evidence of the fossil record has fully functional bacterial flagella present well before the type III secretory system. Nobody has attempted to explain how a flagellum could gradually evolve. There is no point in having a complex motor system in place unless it drives an extant flagellum tail. Any rudimentary proto-flagellum would be useless since mobility would be minuscule and of no advantage. Behe's argument stands intact - fully functional bacterial flagella present as an irreducibly complex structure that could not have evolved Darwinian style. That a few proteins might be absent or replaced with similar ones has no bearing on the overall argument. Even if it were the case Type III secretory system came first, how could a correctly attached and structured flagellum tail possibly evolve step-by-step from a secretory system? At some intermediate point, one has a blocked off secretory system and an ineffectual flagellum. An unworkable evolutionist fantasy.
No you are. Having acknowledged the aimlessness of Darwinian evolutionary theory, you will be at a total loss to explain how even a Type III secretory system could have evolved step-by-aimless-step when all intermediatory steps will manifest as a useless structure. Common sense dictates such intermediate steps would have been weeded out at the earliest stages given their unfitness for any useful purpose. Or do you wish to introduce teleology on the sly?
