Exact pathway? Ha ha ha. Despite all your cut & paste flooding this thread, nothing there that offers any feasible pathway whatsoever. The utterly deceitful caricature of 'what ID proposes' in that 'comparative flow chart' of first article linked to in #589 is somehow meant to strengthen the materialist position. Sadly such foolish tactics meet with your approval and that of most here. An indictment.You mean you would like me to link to all the posts where you have apparently spat the dummy, at myself and at least two others?
Irony along with hypocrisy of course is evident in many of your posts.
With your plea to close the thread [is this the third time?
So no skin off my nose either way, I'm sure most here [as you already have cynically inferred a couple of times] realise the facts re ID and the non scientific aspect, along with abiogenisis being the only scientific solution, although the exact pathway remains unknown.
Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Yes, what I said, we don't know the exact pathway, but that doesn't mean we drop the only scientific logical solution, in favour of some mythical, ID aspect that has been drilled into most of mankind since they were imressionable children.
Thankfully, as maturity approaches, the abiogenisis aspect becomes clear....in most of us anyway.
No, no indictment at all: Simply an illustration as to why abiogenisis is the only scientific answer.
Any indictment by the way, needs to be directed at those that follow the mythical nonsense of ID.
ps: Oh and please be aware my good man, that "flooding" the thread with reputable scientific articles and papers, is quite acceptable in a science forum, far more acceptable in fact then the rantings and claims of a certified loony and his cronies.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I like the fact you take the time to post links and my only critism is that you may cause me to be lazy, however my laziness would probably prevent me even looking if you did not go to the trouble to inform us.
I am not sure but sometimes I think there is a small personality clash between some members, maybe not I may just be a little sensitive.
Nevertheless thank you, not only for the links posted here but, for all the articles you post in the science sections.
Alex
The quintessential example of an ultimate compartmentalized mind. Or maybe just a two-faced hypocrite. Everything in red is, dear paddoboy, an 'indictment' against your, ahem, nearest and dearest!
And as for your constant flooding tactic being acceptable - no way in hell would such be tolerated in a site such as physicsforums. The actual reasons it's tolerated here one has to speculate on.
How many sites have you been banned from q-reeus?
I mean you raised the other site issue, so perhaps we all should know why and where.
On your remarks again re my Mrs,
, I mean I do understand why you see the need to keep raising her, particularly having painted yourself into a corner. On your hypocrisy nonsense again, I'll leave that for your peers on this forum to judge as to who is the hypocrite and who is not.
Or are you just trying to get the thread closed?
I mean like I said, it doesn't worry me one way or the other....It's you in the corner...its you up the creek without a paddle.
And obviously its apparently you who has come out of the (religious/ID god bothering) closet.
Take it easy, OK?
Obviously it annoys the hell out of the god botherers and other anti science creationists and ID religious fanatics we have around at times.
With the personality clash Alex, not really as far as I'm concerned. I just confront bullying and those other god bothering ID creationists nuts, that try and do their best to somehow deride science whenever they get the opportunity.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I have not found out who the designer is yet so I plan to visit more sites to see if the science has moved to a position where there is a candidate for the designer.
Alex
Alex
I thought I had settled that I am/was/is the designer?
Or was that in another thread?
No matter. No one listens to me any more.
Sob sob
<< Mr PoeOne.
That was covered in another thread. You wish to sidetrack further - derailing your own thread, and have me search for a link?
Every time you ridicule those subscribing to some form of ID i.e. belief in a higher power/God/Divinity whatever label suits, you disparage your wife. Simple and bizarre as that.
What corner have I been painted into - in your confused mind?
Your post I'm responding to here is a good example of why I suggested that is the sensible thing to do.
Keep making vacuous statements. It will or should hasten a decision to close this thread.
There you go again weasel. Intimating, suggesting, but no guts to come out and claim I am a 'religionist' of some persuasion presumably Christian. Given my multiple clear statements on that issue, forum mods worth their salt would have you over the coals for continuing to insinuate deceit on my part. But the rat is safe in this sewer.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I copied the passage below from,....
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/why_doesnt_inte097281.html
"it's not the case that these theological questions can be addressed by science but ID avoids them out of a desire to stay away from theological issues. Rather, ID does not identify the designer because given our present knowledge and technology, there is no known scientific method of doing so. Because ID sticks to scientifically tractable questions, it stays silent on such matters. This is a crucial point to appreciate if you want to understand why ID doesn't identify the designer: it's not because ID takes a scientific approach and science arbitrarily avoids such questions; it's because ID takes a scientific approach and science has no means of addressing such questions."
And still folk criticize ID for not being scientific when clearly they avoid speculation upon who the designer may be....so all we can point to is firstly there is a designer secondly this designer can not be said to be necessarily God.
I guess we must let science proceed and at some stage reveal who this designer may be.
Are these folk really serious?
Well one has to realise they are serious but it seems reasonable to conclude they are far from being scientific or correct.
Such nonsence may wash with their congregation but it does not wash with me.
It is my opinion that ID is not science and any claim that they are being scientific would appear to be somewhat dishonest and the whole ID presentation is an attempt to introduce a notion of a supernatural entity as an explanation to why we observe life but can not scientifically describe exactly how chemistry takes elements and turns them into life.
Anyways it is clear that any site I have visited will not make any comment upon who their designer may be and they all claim they won't comment because it would not be scientific.
I wonder if one said to any of them...
"Well clearly your designer could not be God"... What answer do you think you would get.
May I suggest their answer may be along the lines that ID proves God is real.
Alex
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/why_doesnt_inte097281.html
"it's not the case that these theological questions can be addressed by science but ID avoids them out of a desire to stay away from theological issues. Rather, ID does not identify the designer because given our present knowledge and technology, there is no known scientific method of doing so. Because ID sticks to scientifically tractable questions, it stays silent on such matters. This is a crucial point to appreciate if you want to understand why ID doesn't identify the designer: it's not because ID takes a scientific approach and science arbitrarily avoids such questions; it's because ID takes a scientific approach and science has no means of addressing such questions."
And still folk criticize ID for not being scientific when clearly they avoid speculation upon who the designer may be....so all we can point to is firstly there is a designer secondly this designer can not be said to be necessarily God.
I guess we must let science proceed and at some stage reveal who this designer may be.
Are these folk really serious?
Well one has to realise they are serious but it seems reasonable to conclude they are far from being scientific or correct.
Such nonsence may wash with their congregation but it does not wash with me.
It is my opinion that ID is not science and any claim that they are being scientific would appear to be somewhat dishonest and the whole ID presentation is an attempt to introduce a notion of a supernatural entity as an explanation to why we observe life but can not scientifically describe exactly how chemistry takes elements and turns them into life.
Anyways it is clear that any site I have visited will not make any comment upon who their designer may be and they all claim they won't comment because it would not be scientific.
I wonder if one said to any of them...
"Well clearly your designer could not be God"... What answer do you think you would get.
May I suggest their answer may be along the lines that ID proves God is real.
Alex
There is an official 'mainstream ID' position, drafted to avoid being torpedoed as 'religion in disguise' by their overwhelmingly atheist neo-Darwinist opponents. Such a strategy is simple prudence - if you wish to survive and be heard in a hostile climate one has to adapt. Sounds Darwinish just saying that but it's the case. Equally, most ID proponents are quite open about their religious convictions, and that is not something hidden away on most if any ID sites I'm aware of. So the issue you raise and your angst seem to me to be entirely misplaced.
And it's painfully obvious all that's been going on for umpteen pages now is repetition.
Weasel??? No guts??? How many on this thread have you threatened, bullied and name-called in similar ways my old friend! All you are doing is painting yourself further into the corner, and supporting what most now believe about you anyway.
Then maybe you need to quit your nonsense, hmmm?
Moving away from the nonsense.......
http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/3/120190
The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know:
Abstract:
The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the emergence of life on the Earth can in its broadest sense be specified, and may be stated as follows: all stable (persistent) replicating systems will tend to evolve over time towards systems of greater stability. The stability kind referred to, however, is dynamic kinetic stability, and quite distinct from the traditional thermodynamic stability which conventionally dominates physical and chemical thinking. Significantly, that stability kind is generally found to be enhanced by increasing complexification, since added features in the replicating system that improve replication efficiency will be reproduced, thereby offering an explanation for the emergence of life's extraordinary complexity. On the basis of that simple principle, a fundamental reassessment of the underlying chemistry–biology relationship is possible, one with broad ramifications. In the context of the OOL question, this novel perspective can assist in clarifying central ahistoric aspects of abiogenesis, as opposed to the many historic aspects that have probably been forever lost in the mists of time.
http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/3/120190
The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know:
Abstract:
The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the emergence of life on the Earth can in its broadest sense be specified, and may be stated as follows: all stable (persistent) replicating systems will tend to evolve over time towards systems of greater stability. The stability kind referred to, however, is dynamic kinetic stability, and quite distinct from the traditional thermodynamic stability which conventionally dominates physical and chemical thinking. Significantly, that stability kind is generally found to be enhanced by increasing complexification, since added features in the replicating system that improve replication efficiency will be reproduced, thereby offering an explanation for the emergence of life's extraordinary complexity. On the basis of that simple principle, a fundamental reassessment of the underlying chemistry–biology relationship is possible, one with broad ramifications. In the context of the OOL question, this novel perspective can assist in clarifying central ahistoric aspects of abiogenesis, as opposed to the many historic aspects that have probably been forever lost in the mists of time.
Here's another interesting paper.....
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/506024
Abstract
Many scientists believe life began with the spontaneous formation of a replicator. This idea has been supported by “prebiotic” syntheses carried out by chemists using modern apparatus and purified reagents. The probability that such reactions would take place spontaneously on the early Earth is minute. These points are illustrated here by considering the often cited oligomerization of activated RNA components by clay minerals. A more likely alternative for the origin of life is one in which a collection of small organic molecules multiply their numbers through catalyzed reaction cycles, driven by a flow of available free energy. Although a number of possible systems of this type have been discussed, no experimental demonstration has been made. The inclusion of a “driver” reaction, directly coupled to the energy source, may lead to a solution.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/506024
Abstract
Many scientists believe life began with the spontaneous formation of a replicator. This idea has been supported by “prebiotic” syntheses carried out by chemists using modern apparatus and purified reagents. The probability that such reactions would take place spontaneously on the early Earth is minute. These points are illustrated here by considering the often cited oligomerization of activated RNA components by clay minerals. A more likely alternative for the origin of life is one in which a collection of small organic molecules multiply their numbers through catalyzed reaction cycles, driven by a flow of available free energy. Although a number of possible systems of this type have been discussed, no experimental demonstration has been made. The inclusion of a “driver” reaction, directly coupled to the energy source, may lead to a solution.
And possibly the most interesting paper of all discussing a supposed single physiochemical process of Evolution and abiogenisis and subsequent possible theoretical predicted outcomes.......
http://jsystchem.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1759-2208-2-1
:Toward a general theory of evolution: Extending Darwinian theory to inanimate matter:
Abstract
Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life's unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
http://jsystchem.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1759-2208-2-1
:Toward a general theory of evolution: Extending Darwinian theory to inanimate matter:
Abstract
Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life's unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I have yet to find any site who offers even speculation as to who may be the designer.
I am new to researching the matter but so far I am forming an impression which I tried to present in my last post.
This may be so but the situation seems to be a separation which I assume is an attempt to present a separation from what they consider science and their beliefs.
There will always be a problem when your preconceived beliefs match your "science".
I hope you could be right but I have a background that has been helpful in analysing what is before me and although my facilities are well below those of my prime I still believe I can spot something that is, and I hate to say this but I can't offer a less "nasty" word, on the face of things a "con".
I can believe those who believe ID is science may feel they are genuine but clearly they are mistaken.
If I was a believer I would be clinging to ID because it would seem to be science supporting my belief.
But I can perhaps be a little more detached and say its not science.
Showing complexity does not establish a designer.
Anyways our science is reducing the complexity for us.
We understand DNA we can map it, we can manipulate genes, so here we have humans understanding what started out as complexity we could never understand.
But there is no reason to install a designer because we observe complexity, I see no relationship.
Yes it has but if we keep going over and over we may come up with something we have missed.
I just know the whole world is following this so we must press on.
Alex
It is far more than "just not your opinion" re ID not being science Alex.
The whole scientific methodology and basis in which it operates, tells us in no uncertain terms that ID, the paranormal, supernatural are all unscientific parrotized nonsense.
concluding remarks of the above paper.........
3. Concluding remarks
Darwin's contribution to modern scientific thought is profound and irrevocable. It has forever changed man's view of himself and his place in the universe. By demonstrating the interconnectedness of all living things, Darwin brought a unity and coherence to biology that continues to impact on the subject to this day. But a paradoxical side product of that extraordinary contribution with its specific focus on living things, was that it resulted in a distancing between the biological and the physical sciences, one that continues to afflict the natural sciences. The disturbing result - despite the enormous contribution of the Darwinian theme, Darwinism remains unable to explain what life is, how it emerged, and how living things relate to non-living ones. The challenge therefore is clear. The scientific goal - the relentless striving toward the unification of science - requires that the chasm that divides and separates the biological from the physical sciences be bridged.
In this paper we have attempted to demonstrate that by reformulating and incorporating the Darwinian theme within a general physicochemical scheme, one that rests on the concept of dynamic kinetic stability, the animate-inanimate connection can be strengthened. What the general scheme suggests is that life is, first and foremost, a highly complex dynamic network of chemical reactions that rests on an autocatalytic foundation, is driven by the kinetic power of autocatalysis, and has expanded octopus-like from some primal replicative system from which the process of complexification toward more complex systems was initiated. Thus life as it is can never be readily classified and categorized because life is more a processthan a thing. In that sense Whitehead's process philosophy [65] with its emphasis on process over substance seems to have been remarkably prescient. Even the identification and classification of separate individual life forms within that ever expanding network seems increasingly problematic. The revelation that the cellular mass that we characterize as an individual human being (you, me, or the girl next door) actually consists of significantly more bacterial cells than human cells (~1014compared to ~1013) [66], all working together in a symbiotic relationship to establish a dynamic kinetically stable system, is just one striking example of the difficulty. As humans we naturally focus on what we identify as the human component of that elaborate biological network, but that of course is an anthropocentric view, one that has afflicted human thinking for millennia. A description closer the truth would seem to be that life is a sprawling interconnected dynamic network in which some connections are tighter, others looser, but a giant dynamic network nonetheless. And it is life's dynamic character that explains why identifiable individual life forms - small segments of that giant network - can be so fragile, so easy to undermine through network deconstruction, whereas the goal of creating life is such a formidable one.
A closing remark concerning life's complexity. Life is complex - that is undeniable. But that does not necessarily mean that the life principle is complex. In fact we would argue that the life principle is in some sense relatively simple! Indeed, simple rules can lead to complex patterns, as studies in complexity have amply demonstrated [67, 68]. So we would suggest that life, from its simple beginnings as some minimal replicating system, and following a simple rule - the drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability within replicator space - is yet another example of that fundamental idea.
A final comment: this paper has discussed the concept of dynamic kinetic stability in some detail, and the question as to which stability kind - dynamic kinetic or thermodynamic - is inherently preferred in nature, could be asked. There is, of course, no formal answer to this question. In contrast to thermodynamic stability, dynamic kinetic stability is, as noted earlier, not readily quantifiable. Nevertheless an intriguing observation can be made. Since the emergence of life on earth from some initial replicating entity some 4 billion years ago, life has managed to dramatically diversify and multiply, having taken root in almost every conceivable ecological niche. Just the bacterial biomass on our planet alone has been estimated to be some 2.1014 tons, sufficient to cover the earth's land surface to a depth of 1.5 meters [69]. The conclusion seems inescapable - there is a continual transformation of 'regular' matter into replicative matter (permitted by the supply of an almost endless source of energy), suggesting that in some fundamental manner replicative matter is the more 'stable' form. What implications this continuing transformation might have on cosmology in general is beyond both our understanding and the scope of this paper.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member