The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Re: How did life begin on earth?  (Read 12020 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #50 on: 05/11/2013 19:29:51 »
The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :
I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect  theory  , and modern physics had  already kissed that outdated , superseded  , largely discredited and  largely refuted  Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability  nowadays  , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .
As I told you elsewhere, you have misunderstood chaos theory. The maths of chaos is explicitly deterministic, yet unpredictable; that's it's USP and the whole point of the 'Butterfly Effect' - it's known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions'.

Physics has lived comfortably with probabilities at least since statistical mechanics (Bernouli, etc., 18th century), 200 years before chaos theory. The development that has shaken the tree of determinism is not chaos theory (determinstic but unpredictable), but quantum mechanics, which appears to be inherently probabilistic (yet statistically predictable).
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #51 on: 05/11/2013 19:42:28 »
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"
It's now been discovered that organic synthesis, including simple amino acids, can occur in gas clouds in space, which was a surprise, given the low temperatures and diffuse nature of the clouds.

It's also worth remembering that the first life appears to have begun almost as soon as the Earth had cooled enough for the chemistry to hold together, and that conditions were very different to those today - lots of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide, and practically no free oxygen, which was extremely toxic to early anaerobic life.

Quite a few naturally occurring organic polymers can self-organize to form bi-layer membranes and proto-organelles, with phospholipid chains being the likely starting point. In oceanic vents & flumes, there are often pockets and chambers where currents are minimal and thermal and chemical gradients are reasonably stable. These do seem good candidate environments, with chemically rich, porous surfaces where redox reactions can take place. As I understand it, there's quite a bit of support for RNA providing the initial replication machinery, with more complex DNA making its appearance a fair bit later, after the rudimentary transcription machinery and other RNA gubbins had evolved. But there are almost as many ideas as there are research groups, it's a very active field.
[/quote]

There is a lots of speculations ,fairy tales, bullshit  ....in science regarding the origins of life,way more than in any other given field of science  :
Try to explain to the people here how life , or just how the so-called original cell from whom all life on earth had presumably evolved , or rather just how the alleged first amino-acids as the so-called 'building blocks of life " , how those amino-acids did come to exist or emerge from dead matter , or just how the alleged first RNA emerged , or rather how just the first alleged organic matter did emerge from the dead matter ....and how the magical emergence of the organic matter , after so many alleged accidents in the middle of that messy so-called original soup ....how life emerged via so many mutations, atsronomical unbelievable accidents  and random chance  , through millions and millions of years ...............even a sane kid would not believe as such= unbelievable fairy tales in science  .

Try to do that , go ahead , be my guest , impress me and knock yourself out , scientist .

Physics and chemistry are just the material physical biological side of life : to try to find out about the origins of life just via physics and chemistry  , while pretending or assuming that physics and chemistry are all what there is to life  , by ignoring the immaterial side of life , is simply ludicrous and unscientific + a materialist belief assumption  in science that's no science = pseudo-science .
Besides, physics and chemistry or the laws of physics alone cannot account for the origins and emergence of life as such , the latter that cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , obviously , otherwise , try to explain to us how life did emerge from the inorganic or dead matter for that matter , via some magical materialist inexplicable tricks performances ,such as that silly magical materialist 'emergence " trick performance regarding the origins, emergence  and nature of consciousness , or such as those silly  materialist mechanical neuronal 'computational " mechanisms regarding the origins emergence and nature of the human  intellect ......
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #52 on: 05/11/2013 21:15:53 »
The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :
I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect  theory  , and modern physics had  already kissed that outdated , superseded  , largely discredited and  largely refuted  Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability  nowadays  , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .
As I told you elsewhere, you have misunderstood chaos theory. The maths of chaos is explicitly deterministic, yet unpredictable; that's it's USP and the whole point of the 'Butterfly Effect' - it's known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions'.

Oh , yeah indeed , you are so right : you are a unique genius like no other  , i did misunderstand the maths of chaos together with all those great mathematicians in the video in question and elsewhere .
pfff...
Just try to face the music or harsh truths , instead of this non-sense of yours , in the sense that ( I did really predict that you would say so ) unpredictability can be predicted  (why then it could not be predicted before then ) , so, the system remains determinist , well, just try to predict then how the unpredictable bahaves in the system then   : unpredictable behaviour that's thus not predictable = the system is non-determinist , obviously .

If in fact everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , by mechanical cause and effect thus only , then, you can say that the system is predictable = determinist , in the sense that even the potential unpredictability is predictable : unpredictability can be predicted sometimes indeed , but one cannot predict its inherently unpredictable behaviour .
But fact is , not everyhting is just a matter of the laws of physics , of cause and effect thus , otherwise try to explain or rather predict the behaviour, development , evolution  or nature of conscionsess , the economy , politics , cultures , societies , and the rest , just via the laws of physics, just via atoms , molecules ...do not be silly  = mechanistic determinist materialism has   been turning you into an insane counter-intuitive fool, sorry , despite the counter-evidence that stares at you in front of your very eyes .


Quote
Physics has lived comfortably with probabilities at least since statistical mechanics (Bernouli, etc., 18th century), 200 years before chaos theory. The development that has shaken the tree of determinism is not chaos theory (determinstic but unpredictable), but quantum mechanics, which appears to be inherently probabilistic (yet statistically predictable).

Physics cannot explain or predict everything ,despite that so-called theory of everything fantasy utopia .

To try to explain the whole behaviour and existence development history future ...of the whole universe just via the laws of physics is really an insane counter-intuitive bullshit , simply because the laws of physics underly only the material physical side of reality, and the laws of physics might  , in their turn , turn out to be underlied by somethingelse more fundamental than themselves and so on, and so on idefinitely = a kind of limitless Pandora's box   .
What exactly are the laws of physics in their ultimate core then ?
How did they come to exist , in the first place to begin with ?
Are they unchangeable for ever as well ?
What drives them exactly ?
Or , are you gonna just say , like Hawking said , that the universe just spontaneously came to exist on its own from nothing ? I thought that we have already put that silly "spontaneous generation " assumption " all behind us already .
To say that the whole universe is determinist , is simply magical wichcraft at the heart of science  that makes no sense whatsoever  : just tell me about the future then , Mr.magical witch .

If everything is pre-determined , if there is no free will , who or what made man "capture " the universe via science ?
Who or what drives your car , if not yourself ...who or what makes you sleep with your wife , ...some strip-tease harmonious synchronisations oscillations vibrations ritual dances of neurons or of ensemble of neurons, through their atoms and molecules' interactions  ... ? come on .
What triggers wars ? atoms ?
What put you in the lab ? atoms ?
What makes a politician , a musician, a criminal , a priest , an alien, a pedophile ,Hitler  ...do what he/she does ? atoms or their sexy ritual dances ?
If everything is determined ,then, there is no responsibility , no ethics ....as such = just elaborate meaningless utilitarianist pragmatic without any intrinsic value survival strategies= just in-built in us software  .
Then, we should not even try to behave like decent humans might do= whatever we would do, we cannot do otherwise , simply because we are just hardware driven  by built-in software = materialist mechanistic zeitgeist of the moment  .
If there is no free will, there is no freedom , no nothing meaningful , no purpose , no nothing = we are just machines or comupters programmed by the mighty mother nature goddess ...blindly = bullshit .
What is nature then ?: mechanistic materialism had just "killed " God by replacing God by another god = nature , as Nietzsche was trying to do his own sick pathological way .
What is nature way down to its bottom ultimate core then ? An endless pandora's box thus .
Atoms do not make up everything , neither figuratively , nor literally .
Don't be ridiculous ...

P.S.: You know :
When i finished reading some parts of Nagel's book ,i saw how he desperately tried to find his already troubled confused atheist naturalist way ,within his naturalist atheist linear belief assumptions , in order to sort out the inherent paradoxical elements of his naturalist atheist belief or world view ,by rejecting the false materialist mechanistic reductionist conception of nature ,while trying to figure out an alternative to it : the outcome was so tragic-hilarious in the sense that he perceived nature (his so-called naturalism would not allow him to do otherwise of course , unless he would reject it : i do not see why naturalism cannot be underlied by ...God , really = that's the only serious solution ,if one is a true thruth seeker in fact ) , he perceived nature thus as being intrinsically teleological and an intrinsic  generator of the mind , life , or consciousness from the very start of it , giving nature godlike qualities , simply because he refused to believe in God , simply because he said he did not want there to be a God , .....= his atheist belief assumptions determined  the outcome of his "search for the truth " , not the other way around  ,as one should expect from an honest objective thinker,or just from any honest average decent human being for that matter : that's exactly what you have been doing all along= intellectual  dishonesty at best = pathetic    .



You know :

Nagel's "search for the truth " reminds me of that of atheist French nobel prize winner Albert Camus = that reveals the very heart mind and spirit of atheism = a deliberate conscious choice to reject God , even if the latter turns out to be the ...fundamental  truth , the very fundamental power underlying ...nature and the universe , so to speak = you are no truth seeker , you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief  assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I hope i am  a  true truth seeker , no matter what the the truth might turn out to be , and i hope to encounter no less than the true truth seekers : dishonest false hypocrit believers , either secular or religious , won't do .
[/b]
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #53 on: 06/11/2013 00:45:44 »
Oh , yeah indeed , you are so right : you are a unique genius like no other  , i did misunderstand the maths of chaos together with all those great mathematicians in the video in question and elsewhere .
pfff...
Duh! You don't have to be a genius to know the mathematics of chaos is deterministic - just read the first paragraph of the wiki article:
Quote from: wiki
Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
Quote
Just try to face the music or harsh truths , instead of this non-sense of yours , in the sense that ( I did really predict that you would say so ) unpredictability can be predicted  (why then it could not be predicted before then ) , so, the system remains determinist , well, just try to predict then how the unpredictable bahaves in the system then   : unpredictable behaviour that's thus not predictable = the system is non-determinist , obviously .
You're sooo confused... I didn't say unpredictability can be predicted, I said a deterministic system is not necessarily predictable, as in chaos. If you'd bothered to read up about chaos theory before posting, you wouldn't get it so wrong.

Quote
If in fact everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , by mechanical cause and effect thus only , then, you can say that the system is predictable = determinist , in the sense that even the potential unpredictability is predictable : unpredictability can be predicted sometimes indeed , but one cannot predict its inherently unpredictable behaviour .
Good grief... what are you gibbering about? Do please read and try to understand what is written and not confabulate some fantasy you imagine was said. Once more: determinism does not imply predictability.

Quote
To try to explain the whole behaviour and existence development history future ...of the whole universe just via the laws of physics is really an insane counter-intuitive bullshit , simply because the laws of physics underly only the material physical side of reality, and the laws of physics might  , in their turn , turn out to be underlied by somethingelse more fundamental than themselves and so on, and so on idefinitely = a kind of limitless Pandora's box   .
What exactly are the laws of physics in their ultimate core then ?
How did they come to exist , in the first place to begin with ?
Are they unchangeable for ever as well ?
What drives them exactly ?
These are philosophical questions. Science simply makes better models of what is observable. Quantum mechanics is the best so far, and there's reason to believe it may not be deterministic (it kind of depends how you look at it - some interpretations are deterministic).

Quote
Or , are you gonna just say , like Hawking said , that the universe just spontaneously came to exist on its own from nothing ? I thought that we have already put that silly "spontaneous generation " assumption " all behind us already .
Well to an extent, that depends what you mean by 'nothing'; although, to be fair, I'm not particularly excited by that hypothesis.

Quote
To say that the whole universe is determinist , is simply magical wichcraft at the heart of science  that makes no sense whatsoever  : just tell me about the future then , Mr.magical witch .
Good thing no-one said that then. Hurrah for quantum mechanics.

Quote
If everything is pre-determined , if there is no free will , who or what made man "capture " the universe via science ?
That's a thread in its own right :)
 
Quote
If everything is determined ,then, there is no responsibility , no ethics ....as such = just elaborate meaningless utilitarianist pragmatic without any intrinsic value survival strategies= just in-built in us software  .
Then, we should not even try to behave like decent humans might do= whatever we would do, we cannot do otherwise , simply because we are just hardware driven  by built-in software = materialist mechanistic zeitgeist of the moment  .
If there is no free will, there is no freedom , no nothing meaningful , no purpose , no nothing = we are just machines or comupters programmed by the mighty mother nature goddess ...blindly = bullshit ....
Are you serious? that is so lame - I thought God-botherers dropped that 'determinism = no morals, all zombies' idea years ago. Where have you been - you really don't understand how evolution can give rise to behavioural traits?

But also consider, if quantum mechanics implies the universe is non-deterministic, which it may, it does so by introducing a random, probabilistic  element. How does that help free will? Doesn't adding randomness make things worse for free will? At least with determinism, your actions are the result of your own development, unique life experiences, and state of mind...

Even in a deterministic universe, we will act as if we have free will - we have no choice (I can explain that for you if you don't understand it).

Quote
... his atheist belief assumptions determined  the outcome of his "search for the truth " , not the other way around  ,as one should expect from an honest objective thinker,or just from any honest average decent human being for that matter : that's exactly what you have been doing all along= intellectual  dishonesty at best = pathetic
... you are no truth seeker , you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief  assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I hope i am  a  true truth seeker , no matter what the the truth might turn out to be , and i hope to encounter no less than the true truth seekers : dishonest false hypocrit believers , either secular or religious , won't do .
Well, I did say you'd start the insults under pressure - does that mean I'm psychic? no, it means you are sadly predictable. Insulting me won't make your errors any less obvious.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #54 on: 06/11/2013 00:51:28 »
What were the earliest photosynthesizing organisms and are there different ways to do photosynthesis? I think when I took zoology in university, they weren't even sure whether animal or plant like microorganisms came first. That's how old I am.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #55 on: 06/11/2013 09:04:22 »
What were the earliest photosynthesizing organisms and are there different ways to do photosynthesis? I think when I took zoology in university, they weren't even sure whether animal or plant like microorganisms came first. That's how old I am.
The earliest ones were bacteria, using hydrogen and sulphur or organic acids or other organic compounds. After around 1.5 billion years, one adapted to use water as an electron source instead, producing oxygen, which was much more efficient. From then on it was all downhill... The chloroplasts in plant cells are thought to be relics of endosymbiotic cyanobacteria.

The Oriental Hornet is the only animal known to photosynthesise for itself, using xanthopterin, a pigment also found in butterfly wings.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2013 09:06:43 by dlorde »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #56 on: 06/11/2013 11:00:21 »
Try to explain to the people here how life , or just how the so-called original cell from whom all life on earth had presumably evolved , or rather just how the alleged first amino-acids as the so-called 'building blocks of life " , how those amino-acids did come to exist or emerge from dead matter ...
The famous 1953 Miller-Urey experiment made more than 20 amino acids by generating sparks in a mixture of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, believed to be similar to Earth's early atmosphere. Since then, it's been discovered that the early atmosphere was probably richer, due to volcanism. More recent experiments have produced many more organic compounds than Miller-Urey did.

But amino acids can also be produced in space by processes involving heat (meteorites have been found with amino acids in them), and also the cold of deep space. NASA experiments that have simulated the deep space conditions have also made amino acids. In all cases, glycine was the most abundant amino acid found.

As for RNA and the other complex organics that life is based on, they can easily be made in the lab, and there are a number of chemically plausible hypotheses for their natural generation from amino acids and other simple organics, although they haven't been observed experimentally yet; but then we don't know exactly what environment was involved (clays or volcanic muds, oceanic vents & flumes, surface pools, fresh or salt water, etc.), and we don't have a whole planet with those conditions and a billion years to play with...

There are physically, chemically, and energetically plausible hypotheses to account for almost all the stages to produce a primitive replicator (cell), but we don't yet know which, if any of them, might have actually occurred, or the precise environment(s) necessary. Some teams, like Craig Venter's, are taking a top-down approach, reverse-engineering the bacterial genome to find the minimal functional genome. They've already produced a live bacterium (called 'Synthia') with a completely synthetic genome, and are making good progress. They have commercial applications in mind, so they have a high chance of success. Interestingly, he signs these artificial genomes with his tradename.

Fortunately, your incredulity has no influence whatsoever on the progress of the teams involved in this research. I think there's a better than even chance that all the stages of an abiogenesis model will be demonstrated in vitro in my lifetime; I doubt it will ever be possible to say exactly what happened 13 billion years ago. YMMV.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2013 11:03:00 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #57 on: 06/11/2013 19:26:48 »
Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent  - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false  ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side  of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other   .

Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .

How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science  as science  , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion  .
Unbelievable .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #58 on: 06/11/2013 20:21:57 »
you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief  assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I was not insulting you : i was just deducing what i said in relation to you from your own words on the subject = you are ,obviously , an intellectually dishonest person at best= no real true thruth seeker unconditionally = an understatement : might sound like a cliche , but it is true...
Ha! last time you told me it was 'tough love'. I'm happy to let the forum members decide which of us is the dishonest, false, hypocrite.

Quote
You assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .
Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic. Quantum mechanics suggests it may not be, but that depends, in part, on which interpretation you prefer. However, if it is deterministic, it isn't necessarily predictable.

Quote
I am not interested anymore , i never was in fact , in your own projections, circular 'arguments ", beliefs , ....
Clearly; you appear not to be even reading my posts (either that or you don't understand plain English).

Quote
...so : just try to read what Nagel said about the extremely implausible and false materialist "scientific world view " , as follows :<Nagel screed snipped>
Also as I predicted - after the insults comes the cut & paste of Nagel, in lieu of your own arguments. Sadly, you can't even get that right, and duplicate the whole thing.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2013 20:26:31 by dlorde »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #59 on: 06/11/2013 20:28:55 »
Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent  - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false  ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side  of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other   .

Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .

How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science  as science  , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion  .
Unbelievable .
Now that's a better rant; you're getting back to your old form.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #60 on: 06/11/2013 20:57:32 »
you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief  assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
I was not insulting you : i was just deducing what i said in relation to you from your own words on the subject = you are ,obviously , an intellectually dishonest person at best= no real true thruth seeker unconditionally = an understatement : might sound like a cliche , but it is true...
Ha! last time you told me it was 'tough love'. I'm happy to let the forum members decide which of us is the dishonest, false, hypocrite.

Quote
You assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .
Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic. Quantum mechanics suggests it may not be, but that depends, in part, on which interpretation you prefer. However, if it is deterministic, it isn't necessarily predictable.

Quote
I am not interested anymore , i never was in fact , in your own projections, circular 'arguments ", beliefs , ....
Clearly; you appear not to be even reading my posts (either that or you don't understand plain English).

Quote
...so : just try to read what Nagel said about the extremely implausible and false materialist "scientific world view " , as follows :<Nagel screed snipped>
Also as I predicted - after the insults comes the cut & paste of Nagel, in lieu of your own arguments. Sadly, you can't even get that right, and duplicate the whole thing.
[/quote]

Did it ever occur to you that you might have been over-estimating your own capacity of judgement ? Guess not : i am not interested in your own wild speculations and projections, once again, let alone in your materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " ,not to mention in its extensions at the macroscopic levels  .

I did post Nagel's Chapter 2 for the first time here , because i found it relevant to this discussion concerning the inherent implausible absurd , counter-intuitive paradoxical incoherent inconsistent  false  ...you name it ....materialist 'scientific world view " , simply because you do not wanna listen to what i have been saying , you just listen to what materialism whispers into your ears : you are just driven by belief assumptions only , not by facts , science is a matter of facts , not a matter of beliefs opinions ....even though science does need hypothesis assumptions theories ...in order to progress , but when a so-called scientist is confronted over and over again by the obvious simple and undeniable fact that his so-called 'scientific world view " is false , but can't or does not want to consider that option, then, that's the end of the story , right ?
All that materialist bullshit and much more you have been talking about , except some rare relevant insights you did provide , all that i have encountered in some form or other during my own journey : so, i am not interested in any false materialist belief assumptions that get taken for granted as "the scientific world view " : the latter is mostly what you can offer only : so, just try to sell it to somebody else : i am not buying ,Mr.Jehova's witness .

Only fools idiots, ignorant folks or materialists can say absurd stuff like that physics and chemistry can explain everything= just a materialist core belief assumption  , or that the universe is deterministic= just a materialist core belief assumption  , even in the face of counter-evidence , intuitive or not .

Well, of course physics and chemistry alone can explain "everything" =(=not even remotely close thus , even at the level of just matter thus )  within just the materialist version of reality , of course the universe must be determinist , logically , within (not even that remotely close thus, even at the level of just matter thus  ) the materialist version of reality :
materialism that inherently does require reductionism atheism and determinism : how convenient and handy = The "truth " at the service of ideology , not the other way around .
How convenient and handy materialism has been : reducing reality to just what materialism assumes or rather believes reality  to be , and then afterwards,saying  that that materialist core belief asumption regarding the nature of reality is the one and only 'scientific world view " , amazing = when 1 would reduce reality to just what 1 believes reality to be in science , then, all scientific facts experiments' results views theories  would be ,logically , misinterpreted in a way to make them fit into that belief,obviously  = turning science into a belief , into a dogmatic orthodox religion  .

It's a bit like saying , just an analogy , no matter what scientific experiments would deliver , only my materialist belief is true , is science , regardless of whether science can prove or disprove my materialist belief haha= my materialist belief is not only science , it is "the scientific world view " .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #61 on: 06/11/2013 21:06:03 »
Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent  - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false  ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side  of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other   .

Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .

How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science  as science  , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion  .
Unbelievable .
Now that's a better rant; you're getting back to your old form.

Indeed , you are right , if we would consider that just from the materialist key hole point of view thus , logically = as  i said here above = you are driven just by the materialist 'scientific world view " not by science , not by facts thus : no wonder thus = your materialist belief assumptions are science ,are the "scientific world view " to you at least thus , logically .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #62 on: 06/11/2013 21:52:30 »
If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #63 on: 06/11/2013 22:01:50 »
Quote
You assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .
Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic.
Did it ever occur to you that you might have been over-estimating your own capacity of judgement ? Guess not : i am not interested in your own wild speculations and projections, once again, let alone in your materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " ,not to mention in its extensions at the macroscopic levels  .
My saying, "I don't know", is 'over-estimating my capacity of judgement'? Have you any idea how crazy that sounds?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4724
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #64 on: 07/11/2013 00:01:04 »
Quote
Only fools idiots, ignorant folks or materialists can say absurd stuff like that physics and chemistry can explain everything= just a materialist core belief assumption  , or that the universe is deterministic= just a materialist core belief assumption  , even in the face of counter-evidence , intuitive or not .

Please show your counter-evidence, or shut up.
 

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #65 on: 07/11/2013 10:04:01 »
If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?

I think it may have taken a week? with a day's rest of course (but no mention of tea or lunch breaks).
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #66 on: 07/11/2013 17:14:25 »
If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?
[/quote]

I am well aware of those experiments and research  and much more similar stuff as well , i have been encountering in some form or another : that's not what i asked dlorde to explain to the people here :
To be able to make amino-acids , RNA , other organic matter , artificial genomes , to be able to manipulate cells, bacteria, viruses or other living organisms ,for commercial or for other  purposes  ...genetically and more are no evidence for how life emerged .
The father of human genome mapping has even tried  , as some Italian scientist and others did , they even tried to "create " a primitive cell from its most basic and necessary components , while eliminating the seemingly unecessary ones , just to see how a cell fundamentally works , in order to replicate   it  or rather recreate it  from those most basic elements of it : they failed so far , and even if they succeed in "creating life " that way , as they have pretended to do , they still had to use existing basic organic elements of that cell in question thus = that does not explain how life had emerged for the first time from inorganic matter ...
So, that's not what i asked dlorde to tell the people here :
I told him  mainly  , try to explain to us how life emerged from the dead matter ; how physics and chemistry can "generate " life ...
Nobody has the answer to just that , and nobody will , just because life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry alone .
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 17:30:22 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4724
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #67 on: 07/11/2013 17:35:25 »
Quote
life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry alone

Pray tell us what you think it is, then we can have a go at explaining how it happened.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #68 on: 07/11/2013 17:39:57 »
dlorde :

Quantum physics or modern physics , or the laws of physics alone , physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the whole reality as a whole as such , simply because reality as a whole is not just material or physical , so :
whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality  , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .

Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .

In short :

To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything "  .

Physics and chemistry cannot even explain "everything " regarding the material side of reality they have been taking for the whole real thing .
End of the story .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #69 on: 07/11/2013 19:24:11 »
... whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality  , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .

Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .
Supposing, for the sake of argument, there is an 'immaterial realm', what makes you so sure it's not deterministic?

Quote
To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything "  .
It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. So please enlighten me by explaining why you think it's the case.

Imagine we're lying on the beach, looking up at the clouds, and you point to a cloud and say, "Look! that one is like an elephant bathing".
I look where you're pointing and say, "I don't see it, please explain..."
You say, "It's obvious!"
I say, "I still don't see it - how is it like an elephant?" 
You explain, "The trunk is at the bottom right, but folded back to spray over its back; you can see the tail sticking up on the left there, about half way up, and the ears are flapping at the top, near that con trail..."
I say, "Oh yes... I see what you mean; although it looks more like a squirrel to me - the bit you said was the trunk looks more like the tail of a squirrel facing the other way..."
You say, "Hmmm, I see what you mean, but it's clearly an elephant"

That way, we both learn something about how other people think, which broadens our horizons, but we don't have to compromise on our individual views of the world.

There's room for further discussion in this scenario. But at present, the needle is stuck;

I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
And you're saying, "It's obviously an elephant! your silly belief that clouds are just water droplets is stopping you seeing the elephant!"
I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
Rinse & repeat.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I know clouds can resemble the shapes of things - I see them myself, and I can usually see the shapes other people point out; but you're just jabbing your finger at the sky, telling me it's not just water droplets, it also looks like an elephant...

I almost certainly won't agree with your reasons for your assertions about science and materialism, but I'd like to hear what those reasons are - so I can understand why you believe what you assert.



« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 19:33:47 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #70 on: 07/11/2013 19:37:28 »
... whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality  , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .

Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .
Supposing, for the sake of argument, there is an 'immaterial realm', what makes you so sure it's not deterministic?

Quote
To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything "  .
It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. So please enlighten me by explaining why you think it's the case.

Imagine we're lying on the beach, looking up at the clouds, and you point to a cloud and say, "Look! that one is like an elephant bathing".
I look where you're pointing and say, "I don't see it, please explain..."
You say, "It's obvious!"
I say, "I still don't see it - how is it like an elephant?" 
You explain, "The trunk is at the bottom right, but folded back to spray over its back; you can see the tail sticking up on the left there, about half way up, and the ears are flapping at the top, near that con trail..."
I say, "Oh yes... I see what you mean; although it looks more like a squirrel to me - the bit you said was the trunk looks more like the tail of a squirrel facing the other way..."
You say, "Hmmm, I see what you mean, but it's clearly an elephant"

That way, we both learn something about how other people think, which broadens our horizons, but we don't have to compromise on our individual views of the world.

There's room for further discussion in this scenario. But at present, the needle is stuck;

I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
And you're saying, "It's obviously an elephant! your silly belief that clouds are just water droplets is stopping you seeing the elephant!"
I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
Rinse & repeat.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I know clouds can resemble the shapes of things - I see them myself, and I can usually see the shapes other people point out; but you're just jabbing your finger at the sky, telling me it's not just water droplets, it also looks like an elephant...

I almost certainly won't agree with your reasons for your assertions about science and materialism, but I'd like to hear what those reason are - so I can understand why you believe what you assert.
[/quote]

Just cut the crap  then , and answer my questions first , instead of sending the ball back to me over and over again , instead of telling me silly bed stories for kids  , then and only then , i will answer yours :
I have been asking this same core question explicitly or implicitly in one form or another for so long now , in vain : nobody , including yourself , can give an answer to : cannot be answered , simply because the materialist 'scientific world view ", or rather the materialist conception of nature is , obviously ...false :

Why do you think that reality as a whole is just material or physical then ,once again ? Why do you take it for granted as the "scientific world view " : when did science ever prove that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true" that reality as a whole is just material or physical ? when ? = never , ever , obviously .
Just try to deliver your own materialist "extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism regarding the materialist version of reality as a whole , the materialist version of reality that's been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view " , an alleged 'scientific world view " that is,obviously  ..false .
Deal ?
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 19:45:12 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline Zapper Dave

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #71 on: 07/11/2013 19:46:38 »
While I can not say whether life arrived here on earth, already created, or was created here, I will say that life was not a random  sequence of events over a period of time but instead,our biological form of life was engineered. There is no random path to the ribosome, m-RNA, t-RNA  system. as the minimum ribosome structure is far too complex for it to be achieved randomly even if there was a very concentrated soup of RNA and amino-acids. If it had been so, there would be an evidence trail and far more diversity in ribosomal structure than is present today.

Certain organelles such as the cell membrane might be easily obtained through random functions as is also possible for the amino-acids but the RNA-Ribosome complex of even the lowest prokaryote  to have been formed randomly. It was necessary for this component of life to be assembled with forethought and intent.

The ribosome is a masterpiece of engineering.

« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 19:56:10 by Zapper Dave »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #72 on: 08/11/2013 17:29:53 »
Folks :
Can some genius here or elsewhere tell me how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #73 on: 08/11/2013 17:38:10 »
... how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?

biology is an "emergent property" of physics & chemistry ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Organization_of_life

A proof of concept are the space invader type patterns which appear in cellular automata which are emergent properties : the appearance and behaviour of these emergent patterns are more complex than the simple rules which created them.

If you were about to say cellular automata donít resemble real life see "Rule 30" ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30
« Last Edit: 08/11/2013 19:38:50 by RD »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #74 on: 08/11/2013 20:25:16 »
... how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?

biology is an "emergent property" of physics & chemistry ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Organization_of_life

A proof of concept are the space invader type patterns which appear in cellular automata which are emergent properties : the appearance and behaviour of these emergent patterns are more complex than the simple rules which created them.

If you were about to say cellular automata donít resemble real life see "Rule 30" ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30
[/quote]

See  what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #74 on: 08/11/2013 20:25:16 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums