If you truly believe that then more the fool you. Both Peltzer's talk and that of Tour concentrated on many other things but in particular why complex biologically useful molecules will never form in the first place - precursor depletion, poisoning, cross linking, lack of simultaneous presence of scrubber molecules etc. etc. But do go with your straw-man nonsense - this forum allows that as you know and gleefully take full advantage of.
Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
- Albert Einstein, 1932.
...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air...
- Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer, head of the U. S. Naval Observatory.
Computers in the future may...perhaps only weigh 1.5 tons.
- Popular Mechanics, 1949.
- Albert Einstein, 1932.
...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air...
- Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer, head of the U. S. Naval Observatory.
Computers in the future may...perhaps only weigh 1.5 tons.
- Popular Mechanics, 1949.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Do you think ID should be taught in schools either as science or as religion?
Alex
I love the way Neil makes his point in such a jovial manner, while still sticking to facts.
For the umpteenth time, simply put the universe is big, very big, humongously big, near infinite big! and the same can be applied to the numbers of stars, planets galaxies etc.
Abiogenisis obviously occurred at least one. That is a fact...Whether it occurred more than once is open to debate, but certainly no reason why it wouldn't/shouldn't..
Religious schools certainly if that is what they chose, but certainly not as science.
Being a non scientific myth, certainly not in government controlled and run schools.
Due recognition and weight should indeed be given to the serious issues plaguing naturalistic OOL, as raised by the better ID proponents. Nothing imo religious about doing that.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Intelligent science won't abide by your irrational pseudo-skepticism.
Love these vicious feather duster attacks.
Nothing religious about pointing out any issues facing origin of life seakers face.
Am sure those who choose such a path will find many more.
Just don't try to sneak in an ID'er as a serious scientific pathway.
Feather duster or no feather duster, q-reeus, there is only one scientific answer as to how life arose...Abiogenisis.
And that my dear friends says it all!Perhaps the occurrence of life is a matter of inevitability.....
http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf
Statistical physics of self-replication
Jeremy L. England Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Building 6C, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA (Received 28 April 2013; accepted 1 August 2013;
published online 21 August 2013)
Self-replication is a capacity common to every species of living thing, and simple physical intuition dictates that such a process must invariably be fueled by the production of entropy. Here, we undertake to make this intuition rigorous and quantitative by deriving a lower bound for the amount of heat that is produced during a process of self-replication in a system coupled to a thermal bath. We find that the minimum value for the physically allowed rate of heat production is determined by the growth rate, internal entropy, and durability of the replicator, and we discuss the implications of this finding for bacterial cell division, as well as for the pre-biotic emergence of self-replicating nucleic acids. © 2013 Author(s). All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4818538]
more at link
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/37/2011/esd-2-37-2011.html
Thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life:
K. MichaelianInstituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cto. de la Investigación Científica, Cuidad Universitaria, C.P. 04510, Mexico
Received: 09 Feb 2010 – Published in Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss.: 04 Mar 2010
Revised: 27 Jul 2010 – Accepted: 24 Feb 2011 – Published: 11 Mar 2011
Abstract.
Understanding the thermodynamic function of life may shed light on its origin. Life, as are all irreversible processes, is contingent on entropy production. Entropy production is a measure of the rate of the tendency of Nature to explore available microstates. The most important irreversible process generating entropy in the biosphere and, thus, facilitating this exploration, is the absorption and transformation of sunlight into heat. Here we hypothesize that life began, and persists today, as a catalyst for the absorption and dissipation of sunlight on the surface of Archean seas. The resulting heat could then be efficiently harvested by other irreversible processes such as the water cycle, hurricanes, and ocean and wind currents. RNA and DNA are the most efficient of all known molecules for absorbing the intense ultraviolet light that penetrated the dense early atmosphere and are remarkably rapid in transforming this light into heat in the presence of liquid water. From this perspective, the origin and evolution of life, inseparable from water and the water cycle, can be understood as resulting from the natural thermodynamic imperative of increasing the entropy production of the Earth in its interaction with its solar environment. A mechanism is proposed for the reproduction of RNA and DNA without the need for enzymes, promoted instead through UV light dissipation and diurnal temperature cycling of the Archean sea-surface.
http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf
Statistical physics of self-replication
Jeremy L. England Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Building 6C, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA (Received 28 April 2013; accepted 1 August 2013;
published online 21 August 2013)
Self-replication is a capacity common to every species of living thing, and simple physical intuition dictates that such a process must invariably be fueled by the production of entropy. Here, we undertake to make this intuition rigorous and quantitative by deriving a lower bound for the amount of heat that is produced during a process of self-replication in a system coupled to a thermal bath. We find that the minimum value for the physically allowed rate of heat production is determined by the growth rate, internal entropy, and durability of the replicator, and we discuss the implications of this finding for bacterial cell division, as well as for the pre-biotic emergence of self-replicating nucleic acids. © 2013 Author(s). All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4818538]
more at link
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/37/2011/esd-2-37-2011.html
Thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life:
K. MichaelianInstituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cto. de la Investigación Científica, Cuidad Universitaria, C.P. 04510, Mexico
Received: 09 Feb 2010 – Published in Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss.: 04 Mar 2010
Revised: 27 Jul 2010 – Accepted: 24 Feb 2011 – Published: 11 Mar 2011
Abstract.
Understanding the thermodynamic function of life may shed light on its origin. Life, as are all irreversible processes, is contingent on entropy production. Entropy production is a measure of the rate of the tendency of Nature to explore available microstates. The most important irreversible process generating entropy in the biosphere and, thus, facilitating this exploration, is the absorption and transformation of sunlight into heat. Here we hypothesize that life began, and persists today, as a catalyst for the absorption and dissipation of sunlight on the surface of Archean seas. The resulting heat could then be efficiently harvested by other irreversible processes such as the water cycle, hurricanes, and ocean and wind currents. RNA and DNA are the most efficient of all known molecules for absorbing the intense ultraviolet light that penetrated the dense early atmosphere and are remarkably rapid in transforming this light into heat in the presence of liquid water. From this perspective, the origin and evolution of life, inseparable from water and the water cycle, can be understood as resulting from the natural thermodynamic imperative of increasing the entropy production of the Earth in its interaction with its solar environment. A mechanism is proposed for the reproduction of RNA and DNA without the need for enzymes, promoted instead through UV light dissipation and diurnal temperature cycling of the Archean sea-surface.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thanks particularly for that one.
I have been thinking of starting a thread "stupid design" but he has sortta taken my thunder.
But certainly if one looks at the universe, our small part of it, and our society, the cruelty, the inequities etc I think even a school child could present a better design.
Would it not be best if all we ate was converted to energy rather than so much wasted. Why waste time with sleep. Why don't we have birds so big that we can ride?
Why have no fur?
It gets to me that these ID folk can be critical of science and yet fail to see the inaccuracies and in consistencies in their beliefs or their scriptures.
I think children should not be exposed to religion until they can be said to have formed an ability to think and reason.
Atheism should be taught in schools and if someone wants to convert let them do so after they have completed their schooling.
Anyways I am not impressed by anything I have read in support of ID and see it as an attempt to put forward religion as science.
I think the ploy to dress ID up as science seems dishonest particularly when when the question is raised as to who the designer may be it is met with a plea that to even speculate would be wrong..they can speculate upon everything else such as complexity, improbability etc but speculate as to the designer...no?
Why no?
Because they can't speculate at all with out their true views being exposed...I think that the presenters of the ID idea I have read are being deceiptful and I do not think I am being unecessarily harse.
Alex
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I'm not allowed to say more.
Can I put my feather duster in?
He is still alive. Very vicious. Has metal spurs attached.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Paddoboy in the interest of keeping a fair balance why can't you present various published scientific papers where scientists outline their research on intelligent design.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I googled and there is a hint of something, I did not think there would be anything.
So let me have a look.
Alex
So let me have a look.
Alex
Alex.
Would it be OK if I gave you a list?
I have a spare Here Kitty sticky note here.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Is this your way of letting me know that ID does not have many published papers.
I am a layman and not at all used to what I presume to be the Here Kitty sticky note convention.
Alex