Denial of Evolution V

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Did you call me names and then claim a Virus is alive?

    Prove some definition of alive under TOE and let's see where you end up.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    First, we must establish a set of rules of which we operate with TOE. In general, most folks would agree that natural selection in particular and TOE in general represents the rule based systems of chemistry and physics as it pertains to life.

    So, trying to evade abiogenesis and at the same time claiming TOE is based on a set of known rules is a contradiction.

    Additionally, any "plant" creature must manufacture their own food. Otherwise, it is an animal.

    Therefore, this LUCA must be capable of constructing carbohydrates which is food for the plant.

    In order to construct carbohydrates, you must prove an implementation of an electron transport mechanism. Currently, TOE has no such implementation.

    So, TOE is now invalid.


    Finally, I provided sufficient links from Oxford and others in which sulfur vents have been ruled out as a possible origin of life.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, troll.

    I asked you to define what you meant by alive, and gave you a spoecific example, a virus, and asked you to define whether in your opinion it was dead or alive.

    I, personally, said nothing about what I, personally, believe the status of a virus to be in this regard.

    This is like the fourth or fifth time now I've asked you to define your terms like 'alive' and ;something else'.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I am sorry plant life form.

    I am not here to define life in the context of TOE, you are.

    I only need to assert rules of chemistry and physics, which I have, are not sufficient to describe life under TOE.

    Now, can you prove under the rules of chemistry and physics that life is naturally emergent yes or no?
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,759
    Venus flytraps do not manufacture their own food; they get much of it from their carnivorous habits. Likewise, many bacteria and yeasts cannot manufacture their own food and can eat only specific sugars - yet they are not animals. Therefore your point is now invalid - and your rejection of TOE is invalid as well.

    Next!
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Life is not different from chemistry, it is just a complex chemical system. YOU would have to explain how life is something other than chemicals. The Theory of Evolution does not depend on having a theory of abiogenesis. You don't know science and you don't know religion.
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    You're the one making the claim.
    The burden of proof is on you.
    It's up to you to provide the definitions of the terms you're disputing or using in your dispute.

    In short, troll, nobody can even try and answer your question until you're willing to define what you consider life to be, and why you consider it to be different from chemistry.
     
  11. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    chinglu

    Evolution(I assume you meant TOE)has nothing to say about the origin of the first lifeforms, it strictly deals with what happens to life once you have replication. It makes no difference to the TOE whether it was thermal vents, some supreme being or some alien who had to pull over to take a dump, evolution occurs and has been shown to occur throughout the history of life on Earth. That is a fact.

    Life is a sequence of naturally occurring chemical reactions that have been continuously underway for over 3.5 billion years. A slow motion fire, if you will. Like fire, when an individual part goes out it is the end of the line for that particular part and unless that line succeeded in starting other fires, the whole line of fire goes out, just like life. The theory of evolution, like a house fire, only deals with what happened after the fire is lit. The search for the cause of the first flame(which may never be known)is irrelevant to putting the house fire out, it is a separate question that has no effect on the fact that the house is currently on fire. Evolutionary Biologists(like firemen)deal with the fire they can see, they know it exists, they study it's behavior. Other investigators try to determine the cause, but whatever that turns out to be, it has no effect on the fact that the house is on fire and the firemen(biologists)must deal with present facts, whatever the source of the first flame.

    You can't put out a fire until it is lit(from whatever source), you can't deal with evolution until life itself exists(whatever the source)and evolution has nothing to say about the source of life, just about it's behavior after (...whatever...) started it. It makes no difference what we think is the source, life exists and it evolves and your argument from incredulity and your ignorance of the facts mean you have failed to "prove" a damn thing and evolution goes on.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    chinglu

    EVERYTHING follows the rules of chemistry and physics. And Natural Selection IS the Theory of Evolution.

    Nobody is trying to evade anything, they are two entirely separate questions. Abiogenesis tries to find out how life started, it deals with "prebiotic" chemistry(the line is so vague that it's all just chemistry, even life). Evolution deals with how life changes by natural selection.

    You are standing on a rail road track and we both see a train coming. I tell you that the train was built in a GE plant, you tell me that it is a Baldwin. Does it make any difference? Are you going to deny the train's existence because it(in your opinion)could not be a GE? Does it make any difference if I can't tell you the origin of the locomotive? Or point of origin it's very first trip? Denying evolution is no more valid than denying the existence of the train, both most certainly do exist despite the lack of knowledge of it's origin, and the only one hurt by your denial of the facts is you, especially if you deny the existence of the train(I know the train DOES exist, therefore I am not still standing on the track).

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    475
    You claim that there is mainstream evidence. I have asked you, now for the second time, to provide that evidence. Please do so. Then demonstrate why abiogenesis is ruled out by those findings. Just making an assertion is meaningless. I can assert that you have recently been released from prison for crimes of arson and assault. I would not expect to be believed unless and until I provided the evidence. So please provide the links and the reasoned argument.

    Sorry, I didn't read the entire thread. I'll have a look for those.
     
  14. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    So, do you have an article that proves LUCA did not manufacture its own food?
     
  15. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    OK, looks like logic is not your strength.

    First, you must agree with fundamental principles.

    So, you must determine exactly what TOE describes.

    By any account, TOE describes the natural condition of the operation of chemistry and physics.

    If this is false, please, indicate what you think TOE describes.
     
  16. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You are running from your own theory.

    I am challenging TOE to prove its assertions.

    I have not offered a new theory so the burden is not on me.

    Why does TOE run from its own proof?
     
  17. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You have to first understand TOE.

    Here is your simple question to answer.

    Does TOE describe the natural condition of physics and chemistry. If so, then it is required to describe how the natural condition of physics and chemistry converted into life.

    If not, then then TOE is a religion that does not need to prove anything.
     
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    He wasn't asking for an alternative explanation for life, he is asking you to give your definition of the word 'alive', among other things.

    You're not even responding to what you quote people saying, you reply to something else, something you make up in your head. It seems to be your modus operandi.
     
  19. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    EVERYTHING follows the rules of chemistry and physics. And Natural Selection IS the Theory of Evolution.

    Good, all the experts in the world do not know how LUCA evolved from chemicals, do you?
     
  20. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You are in the wrong place. You have a challenge to prove the consistency of SR. You are going to fail.

    But, I do not have to offer a definition of life since I simply accept Einstein's, oops, TOE's.

    See how that works? I only have to live within the current definition of the rules.

    TOE must make sense on its own and if not, only crackpots would follow it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2012
  21. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    chinglu

    We don't yet know and may never know which specific route chemistry took to create the first self replicating molecules(the first forms of what could be loosely called life), though we do get good ideas of how that could have happened by studying the chemistry and structure of the simplest lifeforms that exist today(3.5 billion years after the first fossil evidence of life). But as has been explained to you ad nauseum, that means nothing to evolution. How something starts has nothing to do with how it behaves once started, abiogenesis deals with the chemistry that led to life, evolution deals with how life behaves after it gets started. It's like the difference between building a car and driving a car, the only thing they have in common is they both deal with cars, but they are entirely separate activities and you need not know anything about how a car is built in order to study how to drive the car and you don't necessarily need to know anything about how to drive a car in order to be able to build it.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,759


    Correct.

    Incorrect. You will not get very far in any scientific discussion if you don't even know what you are discussing.
     
  23. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    So far you have not stated the "rules of TOE". Darwin did. As a matter of clarity, you ought to post them and reply to anything he stated that you oppose.

    I don't think either chemistry or physics generally come to mind when we speak of Darwin's discovery. You may recall that he was a naturalist, and well grounded in that field. It's a long road from Mendel to Lavoisier or Newton. You haven't even begun to lay that foundation.

    Let's establish what the goalpost is, and who's running toward it, and who's running back. So far Darwin has scored all over the board. He has a huge global team, and they're scoring. Now: what does "evade" mean in the context of Darwin's theory? If you want to talk about abiogenesis, and how natural selection applies, you're in a bit of a quandry, since it lacks some the essential features. It's going to be unclear what having and excess of offspring means in abiogenesis, or competing for food. So, at a minimum you need to establish what it is you are claiming the theory says the is being upended. Then maybe we can figure out what you mean by "evasion".

    What does this have to do with abiogenesis? You appear to be claiming that the first cell had a photosystem. That's sheer speculation, and probably one of the most problematic of choices at that.

    What does LUCA have to do with abiogenesis? What other energy sources are there besides the photosystem? Where are you on the timeline anyway? You seem to be jumping around.

    You seem to be claiming that LUCA is the first cell. That's speculation, too, and also unlikely.


    You need a lot more than that. But now you've jumped to some imaginary place on the timeline without establishing how you got there. What does this have to do with abiogenesis?

    It's going to be hard to rise to some imagined standard of proof to compete with all of your speculation.

    Thankfully, TOE is not worried about electron transport. What does TOE have to do with this question? You haven't established that. You're jumping in time, and you're jumping fields, without laying the groundwork.

    What are you claiming the TOE says, anyway?

    No, you're just jumping to conclusions without establishing any rationale. We can get out the handbook and debug your arguments for common fallacies if you like. But I suspect you know that already.

    All you have to do is to state the facts and refute them. But you're also going to have to concede to your errors. Otherwise we go around in circles.

    You're exaggerating your own source. It never said anything about the origin of life. It was speaking only about a hypothetical LUCA. It does not reach back earlier than the presumed LUCA, and it says nothing about the origin of life whatsoever. This is where you're jumping around on the timeline again. Remember, this was an extremely long geologic era. A lot of stuff happened -- a lot more than what this one study was addressing.

    You seem to believe that the photosystem and sulfur exploit were the only energy sources at some era still undefined. You are leaving out all the other exploits, and you haven't discussed the state of evolutionary biology concerning the rise of organelles, much less the photosystem.

    That's what I meant about jumping to conclusions. Oversimplification is an easy way to short circuit logic. It's the hallmark of fallacy. Not a good strategy for arguing science.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page