Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Sorry you don't make the rules. No, and neither do you (unfortunately for you). Though you give it the "old college try" with: Evolution = the passing and changing of genes and inherited characteristics of organisms from one generation to the next.Abiogensis = how life developed from non-life. The broad theory of evolution posits that life developed from the simple to the complex. That theory utterly breaks down at initial conditions, as it cannot explain how non-living, non-volitional simple chemicals and molecules can organize themselves into self-sustaining, self-replicating complex forms. That is a fatal flaw. Your solution: change the rules and declare that evolution only takes over AFTER life arises by some unrelated, magical process by which inanimate substances spontaneously and without direction arrange themselves into that initial life. It don't work that way. Any grade schooler can see the billion-parsec wide hole in that logic Evolution explains the diversity of living things. It does not have to explain the origin of life. It does if it wants to retain any intellectual legitimacy. No "gotcha" points are going to change that. No amount of denial is going to change the fact that your theoretical emperor not only is naked, but himself does not exist. Again, replication is imporant and collabrating data is important for determing if that people got it right. I think this article was written for you. http://www.science20...ressed_underdog No it was written by a "scientific community" that wants to justify it's intellectual bankruptcy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) I read this on the 'Science is Awesome' FB page. Intersting article about journals, and false data, scandals, etc... Not saying that MK is guilty of any of this stuff(not on record anyways), but scientists are not impervious to hoaxing data. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33695/title/Top-Science-Scandals-of-2012/ Edited January 30, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 No, and neither do you (unfortunately for you). Though you give it the "old college try" with: The broad theory of evolution posits that life developed from the simple to the complex. That theory utterly breaks down at initial conditions, as it cannot explain how non-living, non-volitional simple chemicals and molecules can organize themselves into self-sustaining, self-replicating complex forms. That is a fatal flaw. Your solution: change the rules and declare that evolution only takes over AFTER life arises by some unrelated, magical process by which inanimate substances spontaneously and without direction arrange themselves into that initial life. It don't work that way. Any grade schooler can see the billion-parsec wide hole in that logic It does if it wants to retain any intellectual legitimacy. No amount of denial is going to change the fact that your theoretical emperor not only is naked, but himself does not exist. No it was written by a "scientific community" that wants to justify it's intellectual bankruptcy. Todays science lesson: This is pretty basic and has been known since at least the 1950's. Mix methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, and water vapor, apply a spark, ie. lightning, and pow ammino acids will be produced. Ammino acids being the building blocks of life with enough time will arrange themselves into cell like structures and over enough time find away to replicate, single cell life, ie. bacteria, give or take a billion years, complex life. If I have been misled, hoaxed please set me straight. Here is part of your counter argument; Computer generated models using quantum mechanics have shown that five cyanide molecules can create adenine, the A in the AGCT that is DNA. It is predicted that the other three can be demonstrated as well in time. Science, quantum mechanics is on the way to solving all the mysteries of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) The broad theory of evolution posits that life developed from the simple to the complex. That theory utterly breaks down at initial conditions, as it cannot explain how non-living, non-volitional simple chemicals and molecules can organize themselves into self-sustaining, self-replicating complex forms. That is a fatal flaw. Well gee, Mulder says life coming from non-life is impossible so I guess it is. I'll be sure to tell those biochemists that they're wasting their time because some guy on the internet knows the truth. Your solution: change the rules and declare that evolution only takes over AFTER life arises by some unrelated, magical process by which inanimate substances spontaneously and without direction arrange themselves into that initial life. I didn't "change the rules", thats how Darwinian evolution is defined. It was always meant to explain the diversity of living organisms. Wiki sums it up well. Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1] Edited January 31, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Todays science lesson: This is pretty basic and has been known since at least the 1950's. Mix methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, and water vapor, apply a spark, ie. lightning, and pow ammino acids will be produced. Ammino acids being the building blocks of life with enough time will arrange themselves into cell like structures and over enough time find away to replicate, single cell life, ie. bacteria, give or take a billion years, complex life. If I have been misled, hoaxed please set me straight. Here is part of your counter argument; Computer generated models using quantum mechanics have shown that five cyanide molecules can create adenine, the A in the AGCT that is DNA. It is predicted that the other three can be demonstrated as well in time. Science, quantum mechanics is on the way to solving all the mysteries of the universe. And where did the gasses come from the lightning? Oh yea it just appeared! ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 And where did the gasses come from, the lightning? Oh yea it just appeared! ridiculous Uh oh, here we go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 OMG, what do you think the universe is made of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 So, like...is the paper coming out or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Edited for lack of timing. Edited January 31, 2013 by Nakani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Evolution: The change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Abiogenesis: The process by which life arises from inorganic matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted January 31, 2013 Admin Share Posted January 31, 2013 'Yall might want to steer this thread back into the subject at hand before a Mod wonders in here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Check Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 'Yall might want to steer this thread back into the subject at hand before a Mod wonders in here.... Agreed! I loved this thread before it turned into a debate on general evolution... I can read that back and forth exhaustively on myriad other forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 So how long are you guys willing to wait for the paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 So how long are you guys willing to wait for the paper? One more day. Then I'll stop checking in. If it comes out thereafter, good. If not, no surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 It probably makes the most sense to pay more attention to Ketchum's twiiter or F'book posts than anything else. Only she knows, either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts