chinglu's version of evolution and abiogenesis

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree he commented on the possibilities of abiogenesis, but focused his energy on his Theory of Evolution, which only addresses the origin of species AFTER the first life forms populated the Earth. If you want to call the most successful theory in perhaps all of science a failure, that's your problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are wrong.

You accept the Miller experiment. Yet, what does it prove? It proves the construction of organic molecules. This is an important experiment verifying TOE.

Yet, is that your people's new definition of evolution to exclude this as a proof because it is explaining the idea of abiogenesis?

You see, you cannot invoke Miller's experiment to support TOE and yet claim abiogenesis is not a subset of TOE.

Further, even Darwin invoked abiogenesis.

So, you have the Miller experiment so called "proving" abiogenesis and you have Darwin invoking abiogenesis.

Then you all want to exclude abiogenesis as part of TOE.

Can you explain that?

I am sure you understand Laplace believed in recursion theory. So do I.

 

I'll explain it, abiogenesis or some other kind of genesis, while a prerequisite physically for evolution to occur, is not considered an aspect of the theory of evolution. Whether Darwin "invoked" it in some context is irrelevant.

The Miller/ Urey experiment doesn't verify ToE, it verifies that predicted conditions on the early Earth could have produced the chemical prerequisites for life. You are the one confusing the two, and so you are making people justify theories of abiogenesis in the context of evolution and are thus muddying the waters even further.

 

as I said , it is the shape of the molecule that produces the energy in a certain way , that produces life

 

river

Still wrong, there is no "energy" unique to life, it's all chemistry. The shapes of proteins releases no energy not already associated with other, non-life chemistry. Life is an arbitrary definition we give to a certain level of complex chemical interactions, there is no other substantive difference between life and just chemistry.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He's also pretending to live in a vacuum, as if none of the vast extenuating ideas that accompany scientific inquiry have ever been considered before. This idea, that Darwin based his theory on his passing reference to abiogenesis, is an example. Origin of the Species was published (1st ed.) long before the remark he made. More importantly, nothing in Darwin's extensive publications has anything to do with abiogenesis. He does concern himself with many other topics (like taxonomy and exploring the coral reefs of (Micronesia?) . . . far west of Galapagos. But everywhere you look, his publications all center on nature in the present, looking back, and almost entirely at the macro scale.

Despite these facts, Chinglu keeps blindly insisting that Darwin based his theory on his passing remark about abiogenesis. And a while back, spidergoat posted an excellent list of a dozen or so prevailing theories about abiogenesis that Chinglu is ignoring. Taking them on one by one would at least be the appropriate stance for someone trying to bring that extraordinary evidence you mention.

Of course, half a dozen people have already pointed out that abiogenesis lies outside the TOE, insofar as it clearly applies to the origin of breeding species of living organisms, bearing offspring (generally in excessive numbers) and competing or food and habitat, etc. And this can best be arrived at by comparing spidergoat's list to the 7 or 8 planks of the TOE.

I agree fully with your assessment. Of course I wouldn't expect everyone who posts here to be particularly strong in science. What's weird is for a person who is so weak in science to bring bogus arguments and argue vigorously with folks who are obviously either professionals, academicians, or at least reasonably informed in science--as if he's going to show them up.

That to me is the mark of pseudoscience--mixed with a stubborn kind of intellectual dishonesty. Its advocates seem to be so uninformed about actual discovery, or basic facts connected to a theory (like this), or even the scientific method in general, that they seem to think some foundations can be upended just by raising some minuscule or (often) frivolous objection (like this).

In a word, there's a screw loose, and it sure wasn't in the noggin of Charles Darwin. I actually found it refreshing to skim back over Origin after reading some of Chinglu's remarks. Yeah, there's a refreshing curiosity, objectivity and honesty Darwin expresses. And Darwin is quick to criticize his own work for its possible weaknesses. He never oversells it or delivers conclusions forcefully. He's just guarded enough to ease the reader into what he's saying. And he goes to great lengths to lay the foundations for any generalization, with ample examples, so there's no sense of wild speculation. It's like a kind of respect that he has--that any real scientist would have--for the intelligence of his audience. He doesn't assume they are behind the curve.

All of which sharply contrasts with Chinglu's remarks. Thus, refreshing.

Actually, I just reread this and I don't like it half as much as your post, which really nails my sentiments better. And very concisely. But I'm going to go ahead and add this to the mix. Chinglu tends to ignore me anyway.

 

This does not work.

The Miller experiment is provided as evidence of TOE in any logic. Further Darwin himself supported abiogenesis as I provided evidence.

So, you cannot escape the failure of the creation myth of TOE, abiogenesis, as part of the theory.

 

agreed

 

OK, let's condense how all this works.

You believe TOE is a theory based on the natural laws of chemistry and physics. You then claim statistics (whatever that means in a universe of of natural rules) alters the chemistry such that those statistics that are selected by the environment will more likely survive than statistics that are not selected by environment.

You then have a problem. You agree your theory is based on natural rules.

But, you refuse to accept abiogenesis as part of these natural rules simply because I can reduce this path to absurdity and then TOE fails.

Therefore, you are required to confess the origin of your theory is not natural and is thus is based on magic.

How exactly can you believe in a theory that is supposed to be based on natural laws but its origins are not and must be based on magic?

 

chinglu

How about the logic that the Miller experiment was a CHEMISTRY experiment, not a BIOLOGY experiment. It started with chemicals and ended with chemicals, not life. That they were the precursor chemicals needed to assemble proteins makes no difference, those precursor chemical were still dead, lifeless and therefore not in the purview of evolution but within that of chemistry and abiogenesis. You are dead wrong again.

Don't need to, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution just like building a car has nothing to do with driving a car.

Actually, we know that to be true.

There are no certainties in Nature, there are only probabilities. Statistics do not act on anything, they are observations. TRAITS are acted on by Natural Selection and STATISTICALLY, certain traits give better survival for the organism, giving it a STATISTICALLY better chances to reproduce which STATISTICALLY means those traits will become more common in the genome.

An example is a moth that has both a light color and a darker color in it's genome. One is easier to see by birds that eat moths(let's say the lighter shaded one), the birds eat more of the lighter shaded moth simply because it sees more of them so the lighter shaded moth has a statistically smaller chance to reproduce so that more moths are born with the darker shaded gene, less with the lighter shaded gene. The darker shade is thus selected for by Nature, IE Natural Selection.

The TOE is unaffected by whatever is found out about abiogenesis, that is just a fact. But both abiogenesis and evolution follow the physical laws of the Universe, as does every other event in the Universe. Your saying the car didn't run over you because it started it's trip in Dallas instead of in San Antonio as the driver claimed. It makes no difference to the fact you were run over. So, even if your claims about abiogenesis are true(not likely at all), it changes nothing about the fact that evolution has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth, and would change nothing about what we know of evolution, nor the theories we test based on those facts.

Gods and demons are magic, Nature is not. The theory of Evolution is based on Natural laws, observations of Nature and logic, not magical creatures crying "Shazam".

I don't, why do you? Your magical deity cannot be found and he doesn't appear to do anything, yet here you are arguing that magic created life. Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Chinglu´s ignorance is great so he/she probably has no idea why Grumpy chose to speak of moths by telling:

"... An example is a moth that has both a light color and a darker color in it's genome. One is easier to see by birds that eat moths(let's say the lighter shaded one), the birds eat more of the lighter shaded moth simply because it sees more of them so the lighter shaded moth has a statistically smaller chance to reproduce so that more moths are born with the darker shaded gene, less with the lighter shaded gene. The darker shade is thus selected for by Nature, IE Natural Selection. ..."

But this is a well known historical example of how natural selection changes the gene pool as the environment the animal lives in changes.

Before the Watt invented the primitive steam engine* not much coal was used in London region and one type of moth was almost always white. After the coal powered industrial revolution was fully developed, the London air was not fit to breath, nor could ladies hang their laundry outside to dry, as everything quickly became black with soot. A white moth sitting on a black tree branch was easy food for birds, but black ones were not. In a few decades, their gene pool was very dominated by gene for making the moths black. After a couple of centuries, London cleaned up its air, and the fraction of the gene pool with genes for making white moths became dominate again.

Often there are several different genes for different colors in a gene poll and one is naturally dominate when the environment is nearly neutral for color selection. In humans, for example, non blue eyes dominate genes for blue eyes, but sexual selections has preserved some of the uncommon blue eye genes. The environment neutral color of these moths is white but genes for black do exist still.

* It could pump water out of flooded coal mines and greatly increased coal production.

PS I don´t know why white is the dominate color of these moths, selected by natural selection during more than 100,000 years, but bet it is something simple like a moth desiring sex can find a white one quicker than a black one as the sunlight is fading. Most moths do tend to do their flying when the light is dim so being a white moth helps get genes for white selected.

Little known is that most moths have evolved to use the moon to avoid energy waste by flying straight (keep moon at a fixed angle wrt to their line of flight. Doing that near a light bulb makes for a circular flight path.) Perhaps if light bulbs still exist for 10,000 years more, moths will evolve that use inertial guidance with their feelers, (make each have the same air speed / resistance) as flying circles around a light bulb wastes a lot of energy. I will predict that - but unlike many other confirmed predictions based on the ToE, that one will not soon be confirmed.

 

OK, we need to get this settled.

If the Miller experiment only involves chemistry, then it cannot support TOE in any way.

Yet, the mainstream uses Miller to prove TOE.

So, you are left with a contradiction.

Otherwise, the Miller experiment is a false positive for TOE.

Do you and all your supporters here agree?

 

chinglu

Bingo! However it does support the likelihood that abiogenesis could occur naturally from chemicals and energies we know to have been present on early Earth. But whatever the truth turns out to be about abiogenesis it has absolutely no effect on evolutionary theory. They are two entirely different things(as making a car is separate from driving a car).

No, they do not. Scientists know they are two different things. Miller only shows that the basic chemicals that make life possible can be shown to be made from natural forces and chemistry. It says nothing about the life that those chemicals can form.

No, we are left with your complete lack of knowledge or understanding about the subject, again.

The Miller experiment does not have a thing to say about the TOE, pro or con.

Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong all the time? You could solve that by learning something, you know.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let's see your worthless logic.

However the Miller does support the likelihood that abiogenesis could occur naturally from chemicals and energies we know to have been present on early Earth.

The Miller experiment does not have a thing to say about the TOE, pro or con.

 

chinglu

Worthless logic? Those may be the only two statements you have posted which are absolutely correct. It's never worthless when someone learns something, especially considering the effort it took to get you this far.

The Miller experiment has nothing to do with evolution. But it has everything to do with showing that abiogenesis is within the realm of possible chemical reactions.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Miller experiment + (directed, if you so believe?) quantum - organic interactions = 'life'. See my other threads on Sciforums.

 

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.