The evolution of complex life

Cypress said:
That's basically just a fancy way of saying some guy waved a magic wand.

I can respect the religious traditions that just come out and say the act of creation is unfathomable and unknowable to the human mind.

That is a perfectly reasonable and honest position to take.

What the Evangelical Protestants try to do is create a scientific theory out of a preconcieved theological premise. That's not really honest and forthright.
Click to expand...

This is just a way of saying that if you cannot explain it with science yet, then it doesn't exist. That's simplistic and absurd.

As I said in another thread, the folks that are scientists and Christian (not Christian Scientists because that is a totally different thing) tend to use science to explain the "how" God did it. Basically they would say that God set the Big Bang in motion, which then set the evolution of life in motion... so forth. Saying, "It can't be God because I don't want it to be and Big Bang!" is just shouting to hear your voice. You don't want it to be because "magic", and they don't care what you don't want because "Faith".
 
Damocles said:
This is just a way of saying that if you cannot explain it with science yet, then it doesn't exist. That's simplistic and absurd.

As I said in another thread, the folks that are scientists and Christian (not Christian Scientists because that is a totally different thing) tend to use science to explain the "how" God did it. Basically they would say that God set the Big Bang in motion, which then set the evolution of life in motion... so forth. Saying, "It can't be God because I don't want it to be and Big Bang!" is just shouting to hear your voice. You don't want it to be because "magic", and they don't care what you don't want because "Faith".
Click to expand...

God did it. The answer to no one's question.
 
BidenPresident said:
God did it. The answer to no one's question.
Click to expand...
A swing and a miss.... You missed so badly that it seem you carefully walked up with your bat and swung at the nearest football at the hockey game...

You missed the point again, you and the pResident do seem to have much in common.

The question those folks are answering is: "How", not "Who"... they use the same scientific method as any other scientist to get that answer.
 
Damocles said:
A swing and a miss.... You missed so badly that it seem you carefully walked up with your bat and swung at the nearest football at the hockey game...

You missed the point again, you and the pResident do seem to have much in common.

The question those folks are answering is: "How", not "Who"... they use the same scientific method as any other scientist to get that answer.
Click to expand...

yeah...blah blah blah
 
Damocles said:
The question those folks are answering is: "How", not "Who"... they use the same scientific method as any other scientist to get that answer.
Click to expand...

The hypothesis of "God" as an explanatory variable is exactly as evidenced and exactly as likely as the universe has always existed in a state of deflation and inflation. Neither can be confirmed.

The advantage of the "eternal universe" type of position over the "God" position is that one doesn't then need to explain where God came from or "how" God came to be.

We at least know the universe exists.
 
Cypress said:
This idea is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics inevitably drives prebiotic chemistry towards biological properties. The basic concept is that organization of matter into carbon based biology is more efficient at dissipating energy.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
Click to expand...

Interesting, but it seems like a stretch. I think the author effectively calls into question his central thesis in his introduction section:

it has long been considered challenging
to speak in universal terms about the statistical physics of
living systems because they invariably operate very far from
thermodynamic equilibrium, and therefore need not obey a
simple Boltzmann probability distribution over microscopic
arrangements. Faced with such unconstrained diversity of organization,
it is quite reasonable to worry that the particular
mechanistic complexity of each given process of biological
self-replication might overwhelm our ability to say much in
terms of a general theory.
Click to expand...

I doubt very highly that this approach, while mathematically interesting, will yield much. A living thing is not an isolated system. The drive toward something that will be more efficient at dispersing energy (increasing entropy) is not ipso facto going to arise just because a more efficient state exists. That efficient state, itself, carries energetic costs to assemble.

This feels like when physics teachers talk about "tunneling" and give examples related to tennis balls passing through a wall spontaneously. It won't happen because the macro behavior doesn't translate from the micro behavior.

He starts with a chemical test (phosphodiester linkage formation) and extrapolates to bacterial division?
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Interesting, but it seems like a stretch. I think the author effectively calls into question his central thesis in his introduction section:



I doubt very highly that this approach, while mathematically interesting, will yield much. A living thing is not an isolated system. The drive toward something that will be more efficient at dispersing energy (increasing entropy) is not ipso facto going to arise just because a more efficient state exists. That efficient state, itself, carries energetic costs to assemble.

This feels like when physics teachers talk about "tunneling" and give examples related to tennis balls passing through a wall spontaneously. It won't happen because the macro behavior doesn't translate from the micro behavior.

He starts with a chemical test (phosphodiester linkage formation) and extrapolates to bacterial division?
Click to expand...
I know that life isn't a closed system.

I note that even though your petty resentments drive you to insult and complain about me, my threads and posts are still so interesting to you that they compell you to do internet research projects.

I seriously doubt threads by TDAK, Hawkeye10, Stone, et al attract this kind of attention from you.
 
Cypress said:
I know that life isn't a closed system.

I note that even though your petty resentments drive you to insult and complain about me, my threads and posts are still so interesting to you that they compell you to do internet research projects.

I seriously doubt threads by TDAK, Hawkeye10, Stone, et al attract this kind of attention from you.
Click to expand...

Cypress....if you can't talk science stop acting like you are somehow superior.

Let your "petty grievances" about me go for a second.

Or just admit you don't know the first fucking thing about ANY of this stuff. You never make your own comments on the stuff you post.


You are a massive hypocrite.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Cypress....if you can't talk science stop acting like you are somehow superior.

Let your "petty grievances" about me go for a second.

Or just admit you don't know the first fucking thing about ANY of this stuff. You never make your own comments on the stuff you post.


You are a massive hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I don't know what Cypress' problem is, but I gave up on him.
 
BidenPresident said:
I don't know what Cypress' problem is, but I gave up on him.
Click to expand...

I know what his problem is. He was clearly a half-assed student who figured out that if he just lists authorities and throws around a few "science words" (usually in the form of titles of books) he will look super duper smart and people will respect him.

But if you actually try to talk science with him, unless you explicitly say how smart you think he is, he will get upset.

I have more geology background than he does and I suspect that intimidates him. So he will NEVER address ANY science I post.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Cypress....if you can't talk science stop acting like you are somehow superior.

Let your "petty grievances" about me go for a second.

Or just admit you don't know the first fucking thing about ANY of this stuff. You never make your own comments on the stuff you post.


You are a massive hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Frantically googling for tidbits of information on religion and science, and then rushing back here to pass it off as your own original thoughts is not a sign of scientific literacy.

The only reason I think this idea is compelling is that it points to an actual mechanism for abiogenesis. And we have very few good, tangible ideas for the mechanism for abiogenesis because it predates Darwinian descent with modification theories, and we're still largely in the dark about it.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I know what his problem is. He was clearly a half-assed student who figured out that if he just lists authorities and throws around a few "science words" (usually in the form of titles of books) he will look super duper smart and people will respect him.
Click to expand...

Maybe. It is pathetic. I mean, on this small forum he is trying to impress people?!
 
Cypress said:
Frantically googling for tidbits of information on religion and science, and then rushing back here to pass it off as your own original thoughts is not a sign of scientific literacy.
Click to expand...

I don't do that, Cypress. I have more science background than you do. Sorry but I just do.

The only reason I think this idea is compelling is
Click to expand...

Because you don't understand it but it sounds all science-y. You are a joke.

that it points to an actual mechanism for abiogenesis. And we have very few good, tangible ideas for the mechanism for abiogenesis because it predates Darwinian descent with modification theories.
Click to expand...

I'd ask you to explain it but you couldn't do that. This is a hail-mary pass. Like the "tunneling" thing I mentioned.

You are so uneducated in science it is kind of shocking. I'm actually kind of ashamed you claim to be an earth scientist. You seem to know very little.

Go ahead and list some titles of books you've read.
 
BidenPresident said:
He does the same with philosophy. He mentions a bunch of people. Try to discuss it with him and he gets angry and says you are hating on him.
Click to expand...

The worst part is: Cypress posts science articles and then will NOT discuss the science. He vastly prefers to just lash out and attack. Especially if you fail to acknowledge his "great scientific mind".

That's why Doc Dutch exists. He is the poster who really likes Cypress and will ALWAYS support him. Watch this forum. Doc will show up in a couple more posts. He'll then start giving "thumbs up" like mad to Cypress' posts and then he'll offer words of comfort to Cypress about how he is the smartest on the board and Perry is a putz.

It's sad to watch. But it WILL happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top