Denial of Evolution V

[Trippy]

You are running from your own theory.

I'm not running from anything. I'm asking you a direct question, and you're evading answering it.

I am challenging TOE to prove its assertions.

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

Yes, and I am asking you what you mean by phrases you use in your challenge. Until you clarify what you think constitutes life, nobody can even attempt to answer you.

Why does TOE run from its own proof?

The only person running here is you. Personally, I think it's about time you got banned for trolling.

 

[Trippy]

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You are in the wrong place. You have a challenge to prove the consistency of SR. You are going to fail.

No, that isn't my task. The onus is on you if you claim it is flawed, given the century of experiments. Your repeated inability to show any problem undermines your claims.

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

Then clearly state what you think TOE's definition is. No one is asking you to make one up, we're asking you to define what you understand it to mean.

 

[chinglu]

No, that isn't my task. The onus is on you if you claim it is flawed, given the century of experiments. Your repeated inability to show any problem undermines your claims.

Then clearly state what you think TOE's definition is. No one is asking you to make one up, we're asking you to define what you understand it to mean.

1) Then clearly state what you think TOE's definition is. No one is asking you to make one up, we're asking you to define what you understand it to mean.
Fair enough. I view this definition as accurate.

The theory of evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on Earth through random, natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it was defined by the evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.

http://creationwiki.org/Theory_of_evolution

Now, I have presented several articles from Oxford and Harvard that back up this claim as they seek a viable candidate for LUCA (single source which itself came from an inorganic form).

So, I am on firm ground.

Next, I have demonstrated through several articles from top universities that LUCA must have evolved in a temperate climate.

So, we opened the debate along the lines of the mainstream and accepted this 2009 conclusions.

I then offered redox cycles as sulfur or Oxygen in order to generate the electricity to split H2O. This is the current state of plants and if this is false, feel free to offer an alternative to explain LUCA in a temperate climate.

You really should learn to read threads because I have been through all this.

So, if LUCA evolved in a temperate climate, then it is on you to describe how this happened in order to satisfy the terms of service of TOE. Otherwise, TOE must confess it is a worthless failure.

 

[chinglu]

I'm not running from anything. I'm asking you a direct question, and you're evading answering it.


Yes, and I am asking you what you mean by phrases you use in your challenge. Until you clarify what you think constitutes life, nobody can even attempt to answer you.


The only person running here is you. Personally, I think it's about time you got banned for trolling.

You are the troll.

You are demanding that I offer a TOE.

All I did is prove LUCA evolved in a temperate climate as per Oxford articles.

Now, do you accept these articles or are you a troll.

Next, if LUCA evolved in temperate climates, there must be an implementation. Like a troll you have no idea how to show this and do not even know what this means so you just huff and puff like a troll.

Now, can you support TOE given the Oxford and other articles I provided?

If not, then you are a troll and should be banned.

Otherwise, feel free to offer your implementation of a redox cycle sufficient to construct food (carbohydrates) for LUCA.

I have no problem confessing I do not have said implementation and have done that in this thread.

If I did, given the turn of TOE in 2009, I would be famous.

That is where we are.

Do you have said implementation?

 

[chinglu]

Also, we must not forget, MIT proved in 2009 that TOE is false.

Anyone that goes against MIT is a crackpot troll.


Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061

 

[Trippy]

You are demanding that I offer a TOE.

No I'm not.

I'm asking you to define what you mean by 'life', what you mean by 'something else', and explain why you think life is something other than chemistry.

That's it.

Apparently asking you to define the terms you're using is too much to ask.

 

[chinglu]

No I'm not.

I'm asking you to define what you mean by 'life', what you mean by 'something else', and explain why you think life is something other than chemistry.

That's it.

Apparently asking you to define the terms you're using is too much to ask.

I have said it over and over and over.

I am defining life in terms of TOE.

If I am going to attack a theory, why would I set up definitions different from that of TOE?

 

[Trippy]

I am defining life in terms of TOE.

So. You claim to be using the mainstream definition of 'life', but what, you're unable to put it in your own words?

 

[chinglu]

So. You claim to be using the mainstream definition of 'life', but what, you're unable to put it in your own words?

I am not sure what you are after.

I followed the mainstream definition of life and showed using MIT, Harvard and Oxford articles demonstrating this. They all conclude there must be a LUCA. They all agreed it must construct its own food.

They also agreed LUCA must have evolved in a temperate environment.

Now, since this is your theory and you claim you are not a troll, please explain how LUCA evolved in a temperate environment when as of 2009 not one single top university in the world can prove this implementation.

So, make your case.

If you can't, then your are a troll and should be banned.

 

[Grumpy]

chinglu

I followed the mainstream definition of life and showed using MIT, Harvard and Oxford articles demonstrating this. They all conclude there must be a LUCA.

The Last Universal Common Ancestor and the first lifeforms are two very different things, probably separated in time by hundreds of millions of years and trillions of generations of replication. You only shown that you have no idea about the things you are talking about. The articles you cited are talking about the last organism that all life on Earth now descended from(LUCA), not about the first lifeforms, which were neither plants or animals, only protozoa of many forms and ever increasing complexity. There probably was a LUCA, but it was not the first nor the only form that existed when it did. You cites are totally irrelevant to the first lifeform.

I followed the mainstream definition of life and showed using MIT, Harvard and Oxford articles demonstrating this. They all conclude there must be a LUCA. They all agreed it must construct its own food.

Actually, if it could construct it's own food it cannot be the LUCA, as animals and many bacteria do not and can not do so. To be the LUCA it must have traits common to all life, only plants and some bacteria construct their own food. Since the guys at the institutions are not ignorant of this, it is you who is ignorantly interpreting what you have read.

They also agreed LUCA must have evolved in a temperate environment.

That is their opinion, there are others, and none have conclusive evidence.

If you can't, then your are a troll and should be banned.

Step very carefully here, it is your behavior that is most trollish here, ignoring the answers you receive, repeatedly repeating pseudoscientific arguments already debunked and refusing to explain what your understanding is despite repeated requests, thinking you know better than professional scientists and twisting cites for your own ignorant arguments. Your candle here is getting shorter by the post.

Also, we must not forget, MIT proved in 2009 that TOE is false

Absolute, 100% pure, barnyard grade male bovine poo. They did not do(or claim to do)anything of the sort. That is a lie, either through total ignorance of the facts or dishonesty, your choice. All MIT said is that there are effects of the mothers early life that have an effect on that mother's offspring. It did not disprove evolution but like chiclids can change their morphology in response to certain predators in the environment(without the predator chiclids have no dorsal spine, with the predator the spine appears in offspring)it is caused by the expression of certain genes in some conditions and others in different conditions. All of the expressed genes are the result of evolution. No gene is created by the mothers experience, but the experiences trigger the expression of certain sets of genes. Another, similar situation is at work that produces more homosexual male offspring if the male is the second or third son born in human mothers. The genes are not altered but developmental sequences and gene expression is. If MIT had disproven evolution it would have been the biggest story in the news but this study seems instead to have died a quiet death, as many such claims do when they turn out to be erroneous or not supported by subsequent study. You really have no scientific understanding of what you read, do you?

Now, I have presented several articles from Oxford and Harvard that back up this claim as they seek a viable candidate for LUCA (single source which itself came from an inorganic form).

You've certainly illustrated your total inability to understand what LUCA was. It was far from the first lifeform, it was just the last lifeform that is common to all current lifeforms. It was not the only lifeform to exist at the time it existed, it is just the only one that left offspring that survived to today, and it did not create it's own food(only plants and bacteria do that, not animals and the majority of other single celled lifeforms, so they can't have a cell that produces food in their lineage). Again, you know nothing about LUCA except what you misinterpreted from some articles you cherry picked for your spurious arguments You'll never win an argument from a position of abysmal ignorance of what you are arguing about.

"The theory of evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on Earth through random, natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it was defined by the evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."

That form was not LUCA, it was a simple, self replicating molecule that formed many hundreds of millions of years prior to LUCA(which probably existed a little over 3 billion years ago, though the question is still open). We KNOW that stromatolites existed at that time and they were one of the first "plants" as they used photosythesis to create oxygen as a byproduct.

This chart is what we know of evolution. U are here, the center is the first lifeform(it's empty because we know little about them), time begins in the center some 3.7 billion years ago. The innermost circle is LUCA. Between the center and Luca is a space representing several hundred million years of evolution in lifeforms, all but one of which did not survive. Learn something.

Grumpy

 

[Trippy]

I am not sure what you are after.

I followed the mainstream definition of life and showed using MIT, Harvard and Oxford articles demonstrating this. They all conclude there must be a LUCA. They all agreed it must construct its own food.

I've told you, several times exactly what I want from you.

Explain to us, in your own words, what definition of 'Life' and 'something else' you're using.
You say you're using the mainstream definition of life? Then explain to us, in your own words, what you understand the mainstream definition to be.

Be sure to support your definition with citations.

 

[Trippy]

That is their opinion, there are others, and none have conclusive evidence.

Indeed, there's one hypothesis - a variation of RNA world - that requires life to have gotten a start in a frigid environment (EG a sub-glacial lake) because of the increased survivability of RNA fragments under those conditions.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Also, we must not forget, MIT proved in 2009 that TOE is false.

Anyone that goes against MIT is a crackpot troll.


Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061

Since at best this supplements the TOE, what purpose does it serve your arguments by posting it? Are you now going to explain what you're claiming the mainstream teaches? You've haven't yet laid any foundation for your general arguments. To do that, you would need to enumerate what the theory even is, then what it it is you oppose. That was one of my points in my last post. You didn't reply to it, so does that mean you agree with what I posted?

For starters, you should at least enumerate Darwin's original statement of the theory, then specify which elements you oppose.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I followed the mainstream definition of life and showed using MIT, Harvard and Oxford articles demonstrating this.

Where have you posted your definition of life?

They all conclude there must be a LUCA.

What is the "L" in LUCA? Why are you talking about "First" life and LUCA in the same context?

They all agreed it must construct its own food.

Construct its own food? What do you mean? Are you going to establish how primitive metabolism worked, and on what basis you are claiming it?

They also agreed LUCA must have evolved in a temperate environment.

I think it's stated as a probability, not a must. What other assumptions have you made that no one else is making? That first life = LUCA? That would be FUCA, not LUCA. What temperate environment are you referring to? There are organisms today that live from minerals. Do you assume this was not available for first life forms? If so, why, based on what evidence?

explain how LUCA evolved in a temperate environment when as of 2009 not one single top university in the world can prove this implementation.

I don't think one single university ever equated LUCA with FUCA. None of them have reached any conclusions about any events preceding LUCA, nor is there any hard evidence about one climate that lasted for millions of years. There is no assumption among them about whether first life took root under or above water, or, if near thermal vent, how far the first life might have been to receive mineral nutrients without being exposed to excessive heat, or whether there was a temperate zone near a vent that was hot enough but not too hot. All of these are assumptions you are making, not actual statements from the source material you are referring to.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

1) Then clearly state what you think TOE's definition is. No one is asking you to make one up, we're asking you to define what you understand it to mean.
Fair enough. I view this definition as accurate.

The theory of evolution is an explanation for the existence of life on Earth through random, natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it was defined by the evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.

http://creationwiki.org/Theory_of_evolution

Do you really think going to a creationist wiki, written by people who clearly state they have an agenda to disbelieve evolution from the start, is the right place to go? Creationists, before considering any information, have a bias to disregard evolution.

Out of interest, are you a creationist? A young Earth creationist? Do you think a god made the Earth around 6000 years ago with humans fully formed?

You really should learn to read threads because I have been through all this.

You need to read what people are asking you and stop replying to what you assume people said.

then it is on you to describe how this happened in order to satisfy the terms of service of TOE.

Then you don't understand what the TOE is about, as has been said many times by people.

Otherwise, TOE must confess it is a worthless failure.

Also not true. To give a physics example, we know Newtonian gravity is not accurate 100%. Yet it is still useful for launching rockets, designing large suspension bridges, considering fuel costs for planes. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be worthwhile learning. Both Newton and Maxwell were wrong on pretty much everything they said, when you get down to careful enough measurements, but no one would be stupid enough to say their works were 'worthless failures'. Evolution has helped biology (including medicine) an enormous amount so even if you could disprove it that doesn't make it a worthless failure. Your use of hyperbole only serves to make you look more and more uninformed.

You are demanding that I offer a TOE.

No, he isn't. I know English isn't your first language and you're probably running all of this through some auto-translate tool but he isn't asking that. He is asking for you to explain what you mean by certain things because it seems we're all talking across one another.

Also, we must not forget, MIT proved in 2009 that TOE is false.

Anyone that goes against MIT is a crackpot troll.

That MIT story doesn't prove the ToE false. Firstly what you quote it saying doesn't disprove evolution, it augments it with an additional manner for variation to occur. Secondly, if MIT had disproven evolution don't you think they'd be shouting it from the roof tops? Cambridge likes to trumpet Darwin a lot because he went to Cambridge. If MIT could show they had researchers who bested Darwin they'd want to let everyone know. It's things like that which get more funding. When an academic gets a Nobel Prize loads of funding pours in for the university he did the research at and universities exploit this. If MIT had killed the ToE there would be press conferences, presentations, massively cited papers, lay person explanations of the work, everything. That's what is happening with the Higgs boson. In the next few months (particularly leading up to Nobel Prize season in October) various research establishments involved in the Higgs will be powering up for a media frenzy, in case someone like Higgs gets the Nobel Prize.

The fact MIT have been largely silent on the research you cite shows they don't think it disproves evolution.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Also, we must not forget, MIT proved in 2009 that TOE is false.

Rubbish. The article says no such thing. It’s just a general non-specific science journalism piece that tried to simplify concepts for the general public. Epigenetics is one of the hot fields in genetic research at the moment. There are whole journals and textbooks on the subject. It has thousands of scientists worldwide studying it and I’ve never seen any of them trying to suggest that the phenomenon of epigenetics does not sit perfectly within the overarching theory of evolution. Because it doesn’t as anyone with any genetics knowledge would know.

As far as I am concerned, misinterpreting a general non-specific science journalism piece for the purposes of supporting your denialism of a well-established scientific theory is trolling. And I’m banning people for that sort of trolling at the moment. Think about it.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Mod note: I am temporarily closing this thread for 24-48 hours while I consider what to do about trolling and woeful misunderstandings of biology and evolution. Check back in a few days.