Denial of evolution IV

[Zenithar66]

thanks for the warm welcome!

You are abusing the forum with creationist bilge. I don't really care what label you apply to yourself or the many, many other people who have come here and done that. It's rude, and mindbogglingly arrogant. Do you think you are the first? Go to some site like talkorigins, and you will find everything you have posted here in their FAQ file.

you are obviously in some kind of denial, just becuase someone presents info that creationists happens to post is not abusing anything, and if u have read my opening post i said that my questions were there for those to answer should they feel like it, you are not obliged if you think its all been done before.
arrogant? wow, i cant belive that me asking questions about soemthign i dont know is arrogant?, Yes, i will find alot on talk origins, but i just didnt come across the nitrogen issue, big deal, now i agree with you guys its no issue, thats the learning process i had hoped for while here.

No. You simply regurgitate garbage from creationist blogs. You see nothing for yourself, and do not comprehend the nature of "evidence" in the discussion of matters you do not understand.

How do you presume that, after i read a blog that happens to belong to a creationist, that i dont check out the issue for myself. 99.9 percent of the time that is what i do, infact i NEVER look for creationist blogs, i just come across them in my reading so dont jump to such silly and arrogant conclusions my freind. I will readily admit that i didnt do enough research on this topic of nitrogen, abiogenesis is not something i usually look into so if i somehow offened you by asking a question that was already answered elsewhere i apologize. But i really dont see how one could get so worked up over it,

You have posted nothing here but nonsense and silly mistakes we all recognize from creationist websites. You quite obviously have not studied evolutionary theory - it is not found on the creationist blogs that are your only sources, for one thing, and you keep making very basic, rock bottom, simple errors in description and analysis and assertion, for another.

nothign but nonsense? what does that even mean? are did you read my other posts, i am simply inquiring and asking for feedback on relevant and often unasked questions. Unless im for some reason not supposed to talk about certain things. Oh and to say i quite obviously have not studied evoluionary theory is very offensive, since its been one of my main lines of reserach for nearly 2 years! what is you evidence for this? Not being up to date on nitrogen fixing says nothign about my knowledge or lack thereoff of evolution theory and mechanissm etc, surely your a bit more mature then just making random accusations like I only get info on creationist blogs, that is simply silly and i promise you that is not the case.

How could i keep making errors, since this was my first post?
I'm sure many silly mistakes are going to be and have been "commited" on these forums. Can you post one question i asked that was irrelevant and tell why it was so? And i dont want to hear becuae it was answered before.

As long as you do that elsewhere, no loss. What you are doing here is not "debate", and I see no reason to pretend you are actually here to learn anything

So im not debating? have you seen my topisomerase thread? if thats not debate i dont know what is...and i suppose this is how you debate ?
come on, were all grown ups here.
If you dont want to answer questions or debate but rather imply someone is a creationist simply for asking a question then i advise you dont visit my threads further.

I actually cant believe what im hearing? im "pretending i want to learn something"...that is low, and very very offensive to me since i am wholy comited to constantly learning in many fields. I ask fundamental questions, if you cant deal with that, dont answer.

 

[Trippy]

but the chirality question is a whole lot stranger and much deeper.

No it isn't.

That metorite was an excess of left over right, what does that prove, ti shouldnt be used as evidence for anything.

You're suggesting then that we should simply ignore evidence?

What it proves is that even though a mixture might be initially raecimic, that nature provides methods for enriching one enatiomer over another, in ways that are stikingly similar to methods used in the laboratory to seperate raecimic mixtures.

What it proves is that when the Earth was being bombarded by Meteorites (if you accept the mainstream interpretation) early in its history, it was being delivered an excess of (for example) L-Isovaline.

What it proves is that the preferential enrichment of (for example) L-Isovaline over D-Isovaline can be achieved by completely abiogenetic means.

What it also suggests that further enrichment may have occure on Earth through similar processes.

How does having a slight excess mean that you will end up with 100 percent, but the strangest thing is that its ALL left for dna and ALL right for amino acids(or vice versa)..and even putting in a left to a right system can prevent proper folding of proteins.

Having an excess of one over the other allows us to build a one handed abiogenesis because biochemical reactions are concentration dependant. In other words, we don't have to completely deplete the initial mixture of D-Isovaline, we only have to deplete it sufficiently.

Incidentally, if you read the NASA press release, you'll not ice that in the first sentence of the 9th paragraph that it states that there was 1000 times more L-Isovaline than D-Isovaline. A difference of concentration of three orders of magnitude is hardly what you would consider 'a slight excess'.

I am no expert on this issue yet, but i simply have seen no real explanation. I really dont see what this meteorite is supposed to prove becuase even in the theoreticl prebiotic soup we would not see exactly 50 50 R and L, there would be concentration gradients, but nothing that is 100 percent.

As I have suggested already, it doesn't need to be 100% to give rise to one handed life, what the meteorite proves is that what was being delivered to the Earth was already as much as 99.9% pure.

If I have two chemicals absolutely neccessary, and one is 1000 more times common than the other, and if we apply the basic tennants of evolution alone, which do you think is going to become dominant, conceivably to the point of exclusivity.

And that's without considering things such as thermodynamics and concentration thresholds.

 

[Trippy]

Addendum.

Something occured to me which often seems to get overlooked.

Do you have any proof that D-enatiomeric life didn't evolve?

Take a moment to think about it.

The only thing we can definitively prove is that D-enatiomeric life is not commonplace today. If it exists at all it is so rare that we haven't found any yet.

Does that prove that D-enatiomeric life didn't evolve 3 billion years ago?
No.
What it does, however, prove is that if it did evolve at all it was rapidly out competed by life which relied on far more common and freely available chemicals - to the point of extinction. A pattern that has repeated, literally, thousands of times throughout the history of the Earth.

 

[Zenithar66]

Topoisomerase

It's too complex an arrangement to have appeared in one step, suddenly, from no precursor behaviors or arrangements.

At least, that's what evolutionary theory grounds on. If you are discussing evolutionary theory, you begin by understanding that it specifically excludes the necessity or likelihood of a "first" anything complex.

You didnt answer the question of why wasnt there a first time DNA supercoiled as evidently there was. I never said it appeared in one step, Im saying it was there on time, since its hear now, there was obviously a time when it was first here.
Now, i dont know if that was in one big step or by slow gradual change, my question is can we expect this co copting of other already existing protiens to have occured through blind chance when the first time DNA supercoiled occured!(supercoilign that needed reliveing that is)

when you say that it excludes the likely hood of a first anythign beign complex then you havent looked at the evidence yourself.Do you really think the hypothetical first cell was simple? yet it was the first one...and we can infer that it was somewhat complex considering the complexity of even the simplest cells today and the minimun gene set. A 1996 study showed 256 genes as the minimul gene set.(cant find the 2009 one but i think they arctaully upped the number!)
The point is you have to think outside the box, saying that evolution doestn allow this or that does not make it so.

Not according to evolutionary theory. There is no "inception" of DNA, no "first time" for things like supercoiling, and so forth.

I said evolution of enzymes, not inception of DNA as you put it.
and of course, there is indeed inceptions of enzyems etc, just becuase somethign get modified and co opted does not rule out that the new function it gained is the inception of a new enzyme. I like how you are dealing wtih none of my questions about topo above though, and your tellign me i know nothing?

It is your whole approach here. And it reveals that you have no idea what the Darwinian theory of evolution states, or how evolution works according to its formulations. So you have no hope of determining its plausibility in any situation, let alone one like this.

yes, i know nothing about darwinian evolution, you got me. I've now been accused of this on two forums and its hard to swallow. Just becuase i dont try to explain everthign WITHIN it but rather question its fundamental mechanisms as applies to the natural world doesent mean i know nothing. If i truly knew nothing I'm sure the above debate with pete would have ended before it began since he is qute knowledgeble and actually had the courtesy to provide me with info!

MY premise is simple, and i dont see how it shows a lack of knwoledge of the thoery.


Dna at some point in the past supercoiled as it was replicating, the replication fork cannot continue unless the supercoiling is relieved by transietn nicks and breaks made in DNA's backbone and then stuck back together at the right time!

SOO..do we just assume that the correct enzyme was there on site after beign "coopted" at the right exact time by blind chance and selection?
this isnt even getting into the incredible coevolution of parts that would have to take place for the evolution of the polymerase holoenzyme!
And the clamp it flies around the DNA on as well as the clamp loader that attaches the clamp onto laggign okazaki fragments at the right exact time!!

Molecular biology has stunned me, I wasnt exactly a beliver before hand*(in evolutions mechanisms i mean) but now i admit i am outright skeptical! Is that a crime?

 

[Zenithar66]

proof?

No it isn't.

You're suggesting then that we should simply ignore evidence?

What it proves is that even though a mixture might be initially raecimic, that nature provides methods for enriching one enatiomer over another, in ways that are stikingly similar to methods used in the laboratory to seperate raecimic mixtures.[/quote]


no im suggesting that it proves nothing about the origin of life. it lets us postulate of course, but couldnt one say there is an equal if not more chance that those theoretical ancient meteors were much more raecemic overall and that one was an oddity? seems much more liklely.


[/quote]What it proves is that when the Earth was being bombarded by Meteorites (if you accept the mainstream interpretation) early in its history, it was being delivered an excess of (for example) L-Isovaline.[/quote]

huh? where did you get the idea it proved this? are you saying that since we got a meteor wtih an excess now that that proves the earth was beign pounded by just those meteors?



[/quote]What it proves is that the preferential enrichment of (for example) L-Isovaline over D-Isovaline can be achieved by completely abiogenetic means.

What it also suggests that further enrichment may have occure on Earth through similar processes.[/quote]

it doesnt prove that, that is an extrapolation from a One meteor that arrived NOW. whose to say that the rest of the proposed meteors werent raecemic and there for an equal mixture of both would have been in the theoretical pre biotic earth!


Having an excess of one over the other allows us to build a one handed abiogenesis because biochemical reactions are concentration dependant. In other words, we don't have to completely deplete the initial mixture of D-Isovaline, we only have to deplete it sufficiently.

[/quote]Incidentally, if you read the NASA press release, you'll not ice that in the first sentence of the 9th paragraph that it states that there was 1000 times more L-Isovaline than D-Isovaline. A difference of concentration of three orders of magnitude is hardly what you would consider 'a slight excess'.[/quote]

uhh, yes in ONE metorite, how can you build an abiogenesis model on this?
is there anyway it could have been contaminated somehow?


[/quote]As I have suggested already, it doesn't need to be 100% to give rise to one handed life, what the meteorite proves is that what was being delivered to the Earth was already as much as 99.9% pure.[/quote]


again your extrapolations are too broad, a metoer hitting the earth now does not prove that "what what was being delivered to the Earth was already as much as 99.9% pure"..come on

[/quote]If I have two chemicals absolutely neccessary, and one is 1000 more times common than the other, and if we apply the basic tennants of evolution alone, which do you think is going to become dominant,
And that's without considering things such as thermodynamics and concentration thresholds.[/quote]

indeed IF...but we dont know.

Many scientist a have puzzled over this issue long after that meteorite fell, maybe you should tell them they have been puzzling in vein and you now have the proof they need.

its certianly very interesting, but lead to know positive proof as you seem to think..

I personally have no problem with abiogenesis theories, its just that none sound plausible!

P.S isnt it possible that the excess could have been caused by.....gulp....LIFE?(on the meteorites parent body i mean?)

 

[Zenithar66]

Something occured to me which often seems to get overlooked.

Do you have any proof that D-enatiomeric life didn't evolve?

Take a moment to think about it.

The only thing we can definitively prove is that D-enatiomeric life is not commonplace today. If it exists at all it is so rare that we haven't found any yet.

Does that prove that D-enatiomeric life didn't evolve 3 billion years ago?
No.
What it does, however, prove is that if it did evolve at all it was rapidly out competed by life which relied on far more common and freely available chemicals - to the point of extinction. A pattern that has repeated, literally, thousands of times throughout the history of the Earth.

first off, sorry bout the quotes im a bit of an amaetur there!

look, at the end of the day its really not somethign worth arguing about.
We certainly dont, as you posit, have proof of any abiogenesis theory. Unitl we can time travel we can only come up with what we think is plausible scenarios, we dont even know what the early earth was like!
if indeed our dating techniques are reliabel over such distances!
so, we can speculate, but the only problem someone would have with such specualtion is if it is presented as fact or if they had a theistic text to "obey"..

you brought up good points and now that i think of it after a bit more study its defo good evidence, but no proof.

 

[wellwisher]

The O2 within the atomosphere of the earth is assumed to have been created by plant life via photosynthesis. Is it possible that life also created the N2 gas? The earth is over 50% oxygen, such that oxides would form from most other atoms if the temperature got really high during earth formation. The hydrogen becomes water.

Plants need nitrogen which is easily obtained through nitrates. Most fertilizers use some form of nitrate for their nitrogen source.

Bacteria, in the absense of O2, can scavenge the oxygen atoms from nitrates, forming N2 gas as a waste product.

Here is the scenario; Bacteria would compete with early plants for the nitrates, since initially there is no O2 in the atmosphere. The plants will make O2, while the bacteria will make N2. The bacteria would take an early lead building up the N2 in the atmosphere. But as plants increased the O2 concentration, it would become easier and easier for the bacteria to go aerobic. They would stop using the nitrates and go after O2. This allowed the plants to finally get the lions share of the available nitrates, expanding their population, causing the O2 to rise.

Years ago, I developed an in situ biodenitrification process. I was fortuneate enough to be allowed to do an experiment in a 2.5 million gallon waste acid pond. This was my biggest experiment. I ordered about 6 dump trucks of ground limestone (CaCO3) to neutralize the acid. I used a entire tanker truck filled with 100,000 pounds of HOAC or actetic acid for my bacteria food (nothing but the best my bacteria. Maybe 20 gallons of concentrated phosphoric acid for making DNA, RNA. Then I used about 10,000 gallons of typical biosludge from a local waste treatment plant. Nothing special there since I had a slimey green thumb for the bugs.

The bacteria preferred O2 since is easier, energetically. But based on my pilot studies if O2 was not available, they have no problem switching to nitrates and even sulphates, to ge the oxygen atoms so they could feast on the tasty acetates. The nitrates became N2, which was the goal; get rid of the dilute nitric acid for as cheap as possible.

The sulphates became H2S, which is hydrogen sulfide which stinks like rotten eggs. I let the bacteria stink up the area for a few days, because pilot studies suggested I could use the sulfide (from the dilute sulphuric acid) to precipitate heavy metals as metal sulfides. Worked like a charm. As the levels of the heavy metals fell to allowable limits, I installed an aerator to beat in some air so the bacteria would finish off the acetate. As soon as the bacteria tasted the air, they dropped nitrates and sulphates like a hot potato and went right after the O2. The above theory is based on an experiment that demonstrated the concept, indirectly.

 

[Trippy]

We certainly dont, as you posit, have proof of any abiogenesis theory.

This isn't what I said.

 

[Trippy]

no im suggesting that it proves nothing about the origin of life. it lets us postulate of course, but couldnt one say there is an equal if not more chance that those theoretical ancient meteors were much more raecemic overall and that one was an oddity? seems much more liklely.

No, for two reasons.
1) It's been true of every carbonaceous meteor we've examined, not just one.
2) A causal mechanism exists that suggests that it was widespread.

huh? where did you get the idea it proved this? are you saying that since we got a meteor wtih an excess now that that proves the earth was beign pounded by just those meteors?

Not what I said.

it doesnt prove that, that is an extrapolation from a One meteor that arrived NOW.

It's not an extrapolation from a single simple. It's true across multiple samples.

whose to say that the rest of the proposed meteors werent raecemic and there for an equal mixture of both would have been in the theoretical pre biotic earth!

The combination of evidence and available causal mechanisms.

uhh, yes in ONE metorite, how can you build an abiogenesis model on this?
is there anyway it could have been contaminated somehow?

Again, it is not true of just one meteorite. It is true across multiple meteotirtes, in fact every carbonaceous meteorite we have been able to examine.

again your extrapolations are too broad, a metoer hitting the earth now does not prove that "what what was being delivered to the Earth was already as much as 99.9% pure"..come on

No. Your understanding of its implications are too limited.

indeed IF...but we dont know.

Yes, we do.

Many scientist a have puzzled over this issue long after that meteorite fell, maybe you should tell them they have been puzzling in vein and you now have the proof they need.

Now you're being absurd, and insulting.

its certianly very interesting, but lead to know positive proof as you seem to think..

If you had done even a modicum of research on Abiogenisis, you wouldn't neccessarily be saying that.

I personally have no problem with abiogenesis theories, its just that none sound plausible!

This may reflect a problem with your understanding of the theories, rather than the theories themselves.

P.S isnt it possible that the excess could have been caused by.....gulp....LIFE?(on the meteorites parent body i mean?)

Not really, no.
for one thing, there'd be other evidence.

 

[Believe]

Not really, no.
for one thing, there'd be other evidence.

What evidence are you speaking of? Are we talking like we should have seen other bacteria (or other stuffs) by now? I can't think of a way that we could tell if the first lifeforms on the planet evolved here or not. Anything we could examine now has had a billion years to adapt.

 

[Zenithar66]

reply

No, for two reasons.
1) It's been true of every carbonaceous meteor we've examined, not just one.
2) A causal mechanism exists that suggests that it was widespread.

and how many rocks have we examined out of the possible trillions out there? the numbers are by no means in.









Not what I said.

It's not an extrapolation from a single simple. It's true across multiple samples.

but is an extrapolation from far too small a sample, and indeed, though you've denied it twice so far here, you did cite your evidence as proof, do you really need me to paste the sentence here? come on

No. Your understanding of its implications are too limited.

i admit,my understanding is limited on the issue, but would like you too poitn out what was wrong with my statement rather then handwaving.


Yes, we do.

Now you're being absurd, and insulting.

insulting? okay, i was told i needed thick skin here but how this is insulting i really cant understand? and absurd? are you saying that i am wrong in what i said!

If you had done even a modicum of research on Abiogenisis, you wouldn't neccessarily be saying that.

maybe thats true...

This may reflect a problem with your understanding of the theories, rather than the theories themselves.

indeed it could!

Not really, no.
for one thing, there'd be other evidence.

why do you presume there would be other evidence? and waht does not REALLY no mean. We've seen the astounding extremopihles here on earth, I see no reason why couldn have existed in our solar system in the past, or even now..

Good debate, i certainly learned some and now dont see my nitrogen problem as relevant.

See you at my next question!

 

[Trippy]

What evidence are you speaking of? Are we talking like we should have seen other bacteria (or other stuffs) by now? I can't think of a way that we could tell if the first lifeforms on the planet evolved here or not. Anything we could examine now has had a billion years to adapt.

I'm simply suggesting that if the Amino acids in these meteorites had been enriched by life rather than their difference in solubility, or difference in susceptability to circularly polarized high energy electromagnetic radiation.

There would (or should) be some evidence other than this chemical signature.

 

[Trippy]

and how many rocks have we examined out of the possible trillions out there? the numbers are by no means in.

See, here's the thing - my proposal requires only two, relatively straight forward easily justifiable assumptions.
The first is this - in the broadest possible terms, the sample we have is representatve of what's out there. This assumption is parsimonious, and it's desireable from the perspective of the copernican principle, because it doesn't require putting the earth in a 'special place'.

Simply put, we're assuming that there's nothing special about these samples, and the more evidence we collect, the more reasonable this looks.

but is an extrapolation from far too small a sample, and indeed, though you've denied it twice so far here, you did cite your evidence as proof, do you really need me to paste the sentence here? come on

I didn't deny it was an assumption or an extrapolation, I only stated that it was based off more than one sample.

But again, the only assumption we're making is that the samples we have are average, or representative of the whole population. Sometimes these sorts of assumptions are required when conducting science, and occasionally they are over turned, however, at this time there is no evidence to suggest it is an unreasonable assumption, and the more we gather the more reasonable it seems.

i admit,my understanding is limited on the issue, but would like you too poitn out what was wrong with my statement rather then handwaving.

No handwaving.
Assumption: the samples we have been able to collect are in no way special, and representative of the whole population.
Observation: The samples we have have an excess of L over D amino acid of three orders of magnitude (1000 times more)
Conclusion: The amino acids are 99.9% pure - it's simple math. 1 in 1000 is .001 or 0.1%.

insulting? okay, i was told i needed thick skin here but how this is insulting i really cant understand? and absurd? are you saying that i am wrong in what i said!

For a start, the paper I linked to is from 2009, and the NASA press release is from earlier in the year.

Whether or not scientists were puzzling over it (if we assume the statement is true, I have my doubts) 10 years ago is now largely irrelevant. We have new evidence that points to external enrichment, by an abiogenic mechanism, which probably occured here on Earth as well.

why do you presume there would be other evidence? and waht does not REALLY no mean. We've seen the astounding extremopihles here on earth, I see no reason why couldn have existed in our solar system in the past, or even now..

Good debate, i certainly learned some and now dont see my nitrogen problem as relevant.

See you at my next question!

Because it's a reasonable assumption. If the enrichment had been caused by life, rather than preferential dissolution, generally one would expect to see some other indication.

 

[Zenithar66]

reply

[/quote]See, here's the thing - my proposal requires only two, relatively straight forward easily justifiable assumptions.
The first is this - in the broadest possible terms, the sample we have is representatve of what's out there. This assumption is parsimonious, and it's desireable from the perspective of the copernican principle, because it doesn't require putting the earth in a 'special place'.[/quote]

I dont really know what you mean since assuming the earth is not in a special place doesnt add to your evidence. Oh, and IMO anywhere that has life is in a special place.

Simply put, we're assuming that there's nothing special about these samples, and the more evidence we collect, the more reasonable this looks.

huh? how does simply stating that you assume there not special add anythign to your evidence? since its simply an assumption. And indeed, it seems much more likely that they are special and the majority out there are not in excess, dont you think?

No handwaving.
Assumption: the samples we have been able to collect are in no way special, and representative of the whole population.
Observation: The samples we have have an excess of L over D amino acid of three orders of magnitude (1000 times more)
Conclusion: The amino acids are 99.9% pure - it's simple math. 1 in 1000 is .001 or 0.1%.

the assumption that they are representative of the whole population is simply silly and shows your bias. I mean, its not a justifiable assumption by any means.
It would be like me testing a fresh water lake and assuming the rest of the earths water is not saline!

of course all of this assumes that we have any idea at all about the pre biotic conditions.

Whether or not scientists were puzzling over it (if we assume the statement is true, I have my doubts) 10 years ago is now largely irrelevant. We have new evidence that points to external enrichment, by an abiogenic mechanism, which probably occured here on Earth as well.

you dont think scientists are skeptical? a good idea would be to find out instead of simply "having your doubts"..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNwposv_Jns check this out!


[/quote]Because it's a reasonable assumption. If the enrichment had been caused by life, rather than preferential dissolution, generally one would expect to see some other indication.[/quote]

again, i dont see why you would expect more evidence since we have such a miniscule sample of whats out there!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

so then do you judge America by its leaders?

Ask any foreigner. That is indeed how they judge us.

Do you judge science by its leading scientists?

"Science" is a field of study, not a community of people. So I assume what you meant to ask was, "Do you judge the community of scientists by their leading scientists?" Again the answer is yes.

And it's probably a more valid judgment than in the previous case. National leaders are chosen by an electoral process, which is greatly perturbed by emotions, money, theatrics, power, and outright lying. The process by which scientific leaders achieve their positions is of course not completely immune to these influences, but the influence is much less. A leading scientist becomes a leading scientist because the vast majority of other scientists respect his work. He will, therefore, be much more representative of the community of scientists than a political leader is of his constituency of citizens.

Do you judge a town by its mayor?

Again, yes. The people who live there chose him, so he must represent the community in some important ways. If he's corrupt or incompetent, it means that the community is corrupt or incompetent.

You have to stop worrying about the persons involved and worry about the information presented, which is unfortuntly not all rubbish, though most probably is. You see, though these people are dangerous becuase of a prior commitment to a particaulr text, they are not the only ones questioning evolution . . . .

Yes they are. To be more precise, they are the only reasonably well-educated grownups who question it. The other "skeptics" are either poorly-educated people who trust the wisdom of their cultural leaders about things they can't understand, or else young students experimenting with the processes of science, scholarship and iconoclasm just for the fun of it.

Something occured to me which often seems to get overlooked. Do you have any proof that D-enatiomeric life didn't evolve?

Not only do we have no proof, but we don't even have any decent evidence. The frustrating thing about the earliest lifeforms (I won't call them "organisms" because they may very well have been too primitive to satisfy the definition of that word) is that they didn't have any hard tissue so they didn't leave very many fossils.

There may have been a number of different--um--types of matter that satisfied or came close to satisfying the requirements for being called "life." (And those requirements are fairly vague. When we encounter the first lifeforms elsewhere in the universe they may be so astoundingly different that we won't even recognize them, and when we do we'll have to do some major revisions to the definition of the word.) But only the DNA-based life with which we're familiar had the survival advantage, and all the others died off without leaving enough evidence to still be around several billion years later.

We may never know. D-enatiomeric life may be merely one of a dozen kinds of experiments--or a hundred kinds--performed by nature, and only one of them was a success.

 

[Zenithar66]

odd reasoning

Ask any foreigner. That is indeed how they judge us."Science" is a field of study, not a community of people. So I assume what you meant to ask was, "Do you judge the community of scientists by their leading scientists?" Again the answer is yes.

what, and therefore that is HOW we should judge a nation?
becuase if that is true then it is simply non sensical since the leaders of most nations are clearly not representivive of the nation itself. Do you really think nations in general want war? yet, wars are waged. You see the problem here.

. The process by which scientific leaders achieve their positions is of course not completely immune to these influences, but the influence is much less. A leading scientist becomes a leading scientist because the vast majority of other scientists respect his work. He will, therefore, be much more representative of the community of scientists than a political leader is of his constituency of citizens.

Im actauly talking specifically about areas of scinece in relation to the opinion of its leaders and pointing out that we should not simply take our opinions from these people no matter how "high up" but rather educate ourselves so we can asses the data and critically form our own opinions.
(and dont worry i know most poeple are unwilling to do that)

Again, yes. The people who live there chose him, so he must represent the community in some important ways. If he's corrupt or incompetent, it means that the community is corrupt or incompetent.

if he's corrupt or incompetent, it means that the community is corrupt and incompetent? wow, this is some seriously flawed logic and it makes me worry about your critical factuties. you cant seriously belive this?
firstly he only represents, the part of the community that voted him in!
and second, the very community that voted him in will demand his resigning or worse if he commits a felony visiblre to the public!
this is like saying that george bush must represent the rest of america or obama the same? its illogical and slighly odd reasoning.

Yes they are. To be more precise, they are the only reasonably well-educated grownups who question it. The other "skeptics" are either poorly-educated people who trust the wisdom of their cultural leaders about things they can't understand, or else young students experimenting with the processes of science, scholarship and iconoclasm just for the fun of it..

what you mean to say is you presume that the only skeptics are "poorly-educated people who trust the wisdom of their cultural leaders about things they can't understand" or ""young students experimenting with the processes of science, scholarship and iconoclasm just for the fun of it. have you got any evidence of this?
David berlinski is in neither category nor is he a creationist.
these kind of sweeping generalisations are simplly just that.

There may have been a number of different--um--types of matter that satisfied or came close to satisfying the requirements for being called "life." (And those requirements are fairly vague. When we encounter the first lifeforms elsewhere in the universe they may be so astoundingly different that we won't even recognize them, and when we do we'll have to do some major revisions to the definition of the word.) But only the DNA-based life with which we're familiar had the survival advantage, and all the others died off without leaving enough evidence to still be around several billion years later.oung students experimenting with the processes of science, scholarship and iconoclasm just for the fun of it

so the thoery goes..

 

[Trippy]

huh? how does simply stating that you assume there not special add anythign to your evidence? since its simply an assumption. And indeed, it seems much more likely that they are special and the majority out there are not in excess, dont you think?

No, for a number of reasons, including that you now have to provide a mechanism to deliver rare 'special' carbonaceous meteorites to earth, while keeping the common 'normal' ones away.

the assumption that they are representative of the whole population is simply silly and shows your bias. I mean, its not a justifiable assumption by any means.

No. It is completely justifiable. It is more parsimonius to assume that what we have is representative, rather than the Earth is somehow being delivered these 'special' meteorites.

Oh yeah - I forgot to mention, the spectra of the samples that we have consistent with the general spectra of the population of carbonaceous asteroids - hence their classification as carbonaceous meteorites, and the desire of scientists to study them as a representative sample. So although I present it as an assumption, we have reasons for making that assumption.

It would be like me testing a fresh water lake and assuming the rest of the earths water is not saline!

This is a very silly analogy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that if you had read any of the information i've linked to for you, you would have realized that there are a couple of different sub groups represented in the sample.

But, above and beyond that, it's quite clear from simple observation, without the need for samples, that there are several different kinds of standing water bodies on the surface of the earth, the differences between which can be determined from orbit.

All of this, however, has led me to the conclusion that you are here with a hidden agenda involving creationist trolling.

 

[Trippy]

Ask any foreigner. That is indeed how they judge us.

By the actions of your leaders, and to some extent, by those aspects of your culture that you choose to export.

Ask any foreigner. That is indeed how they judge us."Science" is a field of study, not a community of people. So I assume what you meant to ask was, "Do you judge the community of scientists by their leading scientists?" Again the answer is yes.

Yeah, you only need to look at the kerfuffle that happens when a leading scientist from some specific branch is presented as behaving badly.

what, and therefore that is HOW we should judge a nation?
becuase if that is true then it is simply non sensical since the leaders of most nations are clearly not representivive of the nation itself. Do you really think nations in general want war? yet, wars are waged. You see the problem here.

It's how nations are judged, regardless. By the actions of their leaders, by the culture they export.

Some more so than others, after all America is a democracy isn't it? Therefore the leaders of America are representative of the will of the majority of the people aren't they?

 

[Zenithar66]

You have me all wrong

No, for a number of reasons, including that you now have to provide a mechanism to deliver rare 'special' carbonaceous meteorites to earth, while keeping the common 'normal' ones away.


No. It is completely justifiable. It is more parsimonius to assume that what we have is representative, rather than the Earth is somehow being delivered these 'special' meteorites.

Oh yeah - I forgot to mention, the spectra of the samples that we have consistent with the general spectra of the population of carbonaceous asteroids - hence their classification as carbonaceous meteorites, and the desire of scientists to study them as a representative sample. So although I present it as an assumption, we have reasons for making that assumption.


This is a very silly analogy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that if you had read any of the information i've linked to for you, you would have realized that there are a couple of different sub groups represented in the sample.

But, above and beyond that, it's quite clear from simple observation, without the need for samples, that there are several different kinds of standing water bodies on the surface of the earth, the differences between which can be determined from orbit.

All of this, however, has led me to the conclusion that you are here with a hidden agenda involving creationist trolling.

I think i must admit defeat, I simply dont know enough about the topic, but from what i do, i am not convinced(like many scientists, not that that really matters, im just pointing it out).
I will return to the question in future when i am more widely read on it.

I really dont see how me questiong this or not "beleiving" it lead you to belive i am a a creationist..I can maybe understand that you think i am, but let me assure you I am no such thing. I neither hold any theistic leanings nor want to associate with ANYONE who takes those anceint allegorical texts literally. I am simply very skeptical and inquistive and hope to basically figure out as much as i can before i die!

I hope you will, when viewing my future threads be able to discern my passion for study(ive only been truly studying science deeply for 2 years) that i have no agenda but to learn and be highly skeptical.
I am not goign to hide from the fact that i do not think evolutions mechanisms are up to scratch for accounting for the adaptions i see in nature(opinion subject to change unlike biblical crazies), but i assure you this is not on religoius grounds!

I am very into the, what you might call, occult reearch, mythology etc, and even the supernatural and these experiecnes have taught me that religons are the outgrowth of mans tyring to understand nature and worshipping it, as well of other things that i obviously have no time to go into.

those that worshipped the sun at least could see the effects and physicallity of there god! unlike those modern zealots that are literally mind controlled!

you win, i hope to pursue this at anohter time.

 

[Zenithar66]

By the actions of your leaders, and to some extent, by those aspects of your culture that you choose to export.


Yeah, you only need to look at the kerfuffle that happens when a leading scientist from some specific branch is presented as behaving badly.


It's how nations are judged, regardless. By the actions of their leaders, by the culture they export.

Some more so than others, after all America is a democracy isn't it? Therefore the leaders of America are representative of the will of the majority of the people aren't they?

well, if you think america is a democracy then you have ALOT of reserach to do..I personally would never judge a nation by its leaders. But thats just me since the leaders of my country are children who cant see the big picture(i live in ireland)