Customer Discussions > Science forum

IDers please stop embarassing yourselves


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 536 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 3:12:09 PM PDT
The Weasel says:
DonJuan says:
"Well, I'm embarassed for you."

I must say that is a bizarre state of affairs.
***
So, again, your actual position concerning life on Earth is what?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 3:16:31 PM PDT
DonJuan says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 3:19:09 PM PDT
The Weasel says:
DonJuan says:
"So, again, your actual position concerning life on Earth is what?"

Of course, lots of things evolve besides just organisms.
***
So, organisms evolve. Well, at least we agree there. What mechanism causes them to evolve? Under what conditions are the most or least likely to evolve?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 3:32:19 PM PDT
Carl Flygare says:
DonWandering,

Perhaps you'd like to discuss how chemiosmosis plausibly originated in alkaline hydrothermal vents, or how running the Krebs Cycle (aka Citric Acid Cycle) in reverse with an assist from mineral catalysts can generate the essential biomolecules required for life - nah you'll simply backpeddle into biblically-induced bluster and special pleading.

Your entire contribution to this thread constitutes an epic fail. Wading through the depth of your intellect wouldn't even get the bottom of my feet wet, let alone my ankles.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 4:11:42 PM PDT
<< so what do those two chapters say? >>

I'm not sure in what sense you're asking, ac. Anyway, many better synopses of Darwin's book have been written by others than I can re-create here. I suggest you find one from the interwebs. Wikipedia has a nice one, which goes chapter-by-chapter.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 4:13:22 PM PDT
<< I believe he's a total comedian who takes any controversial idea, however minor, and makes up a comedy act around it.>>

It's certainly possible. I will say that I grew up among creationists, and CH doesn't strike me as out of the ordinary range of creationist rhetorical behavior. But, you might well be right.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 4:48:56 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2012 5:55:15 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 5:08:21 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2012 6:04:30 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2012 5:43:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 19, 2012 1:44:03 AM PDT
Juscz says:
Speaking of Richard Kepler being a comedian-type poster like Christopher Haynes, Philip Duerdoth astutely observed the following:

"Richard Kepler is from the same mould. Similarly mouldy but outrageous in a different way. Aren't you, Richard!"

Well, you DIDN'T QUITE WRITE THAT THE CORRECT WAY, Philip. Should have written it thus:

''Richard Kepler is from the same mould. SIMILARLY MOULDY BUT OUTRAGEOUS IN A DIFFERENT WAY. AREN'T YOU, RICHARD!

Hope this helps.

Juscz

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 8:22:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 19, 2012 8:57:28 AM PDT
"Is nature deliberately selecting this and that specific individual with omnipotent knowledge of the consequences? Oh my! This sounds like a familiar theme."

If dark colored ectotherms generally survive better in colder climates than light colored ectotherms, then this is non-random selection but nature is not "deliberately selecting this and that specific individual with omnipotent knowledge of the consequences".
Does that clear this up for you?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 11:45:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 19, 2012 11:49:24 AM PDT
noman says:
DonJuan says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Hide post again. (Show all ignored posts)]
"Natural selection is not random."

Then what is it? Is nature deliberately selecting this and that specific individual with omnipotent knowledge of the consequences? Oh my! This sounds like a familiar theme.

****(entirely off the cuff and outside my field)

First a few definitions.

Random: an event that can not be specified from initial conditions. Keep in mind that deterministic initial conditions can give rise to random consequences. An example would be a thrown ball, which is entirely deterministic while the resulting 'bounce' is random. OTOH, random initial stages can give rise to entirely deterministic outcomes. See "The Jungles of Randomness" by Ivars Peterson for a fuller explanation.

Natural Selection: In it's simplest form, imagine a sieve that allows only pebbles of a certain size or shape (or both) to pass through. In "nature" this "sieve" consists of a whole host of things, including but not limited to, climate, predation, parasite load, competition for mates, etc.

A simple and entirely non-living example would be survival of snow drifts. The fall of snow can be assumed to be entirely random...it is impossible to predict where any individual snowflake will eventually settle even given perfect knowledge of initial starting conditions. Given this premise it's easy to see that some snowflakes will settle in areas that receive maximum solar radiation and will 'perish' quickly relative to snowflakes that, randomly, fall in more sheltered areas. In this example we can assume that our 'organisms' (snowflakes) are all immutable and identical and therefore the populations of snowflakes can not be selected for adaptations more suited to changing conditions. However the selection **process** (no-shade or more shade) is entirely independent of the "genetics" of the snowflakes and selects those snowflakes that, by sheer chance, end up in an environment favorable for their survival.

Living organisms, due to mutation, genetic drift, etc, have variations in their genotype which may lead to variations in phenotype and it is the phenotype which interacts with the environment. The changes in the genetic reproductive material (sperm & eggs for sexual reproduction) are entirely random in that it is not possible to determine which nucleotide (for example) will undergo frame shift mutation due to ionizing radiation. To further complicate matters chemical mutagens, ionizing radiation, genetic drift and etc. are all going on simultaneously within a population which is aging. (that is, mutations increase with age so older parents are more likely to produce offspring with more changes than younger parents) Adding in all such factors it's easy to see that the final genotype/phenotype of an organism is a bit like blind spider monkeys throwing dice during an earthquake to choose the winning number on a roulette wheel that changes the numbers while the dice are in mid air. It may not be "random" in the sense of a quantum event, but so far the math works out as expected.

Natural Selection: All those things in the real world that will kill you if you don't do every thing just right. And,sometimes even if you do. This is another numbers game. A perfect genetic specimen might drown crossing a river and a hopeless genetic cripple might find the only oasis in the desert. However, on average, the majority of those organisms which survive to reproduce (the only criteria for success) will be those whose, randomly chosen, genetic material produces phenotypes best able to reproduce itself in that particular environment. Long term survival of a population , broadly speaking, depends on the ability to occupy a wide variety of environments which in turn depends upon producing large numbers of individuals which allows for the greatest numbers of variations which increases the chances of a variation suitable for a changed environment.

Randomness occurs in the sense that it is not possible to determine which mutations or which combinations of parental DNA (in sexual species) are going to occur nor which phenotypes a particular DNA sequence will produce. Selection, OTOH, is *overall* not random (don't forget the perfect organism which drowned crossing the river) Choosing a very simple "selector" such as *cold* it's easy to see that the selection is entirely non-random (except for avalanche, falling off a cliff, etc) in that the greatest majority of individuals in a population which survive to reproduce will be those whose *randomly* chosen genotype produced a phenotype which gave some competitive advantage over those organisms lacking that genotype/phenotype.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 1:03:07 PM PDT
The Weasel said: "The theory is strongly supported without any historical physical evidence." and "In other words as any good theory does, evolution predicted what we would in the fossil record if any fossils were found - and it did so correctly."

Weasel, what is the other evidence for evolution? And, predictability; one of the conditions of the scientific method, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 5:57:33 PM PDT
Dr. Chaos says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 6:15:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 19, 2012 6:24:49 PM PDT
RR says:
Chaos,
"Back in the real world of science, ( not in your parent's basement), a constrained random process is still a RANDOM process."

Still demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about. Purely random processes like roulette are different from "constrained random" processes like poker, if that isn't obvious.

If they were the same, then there would be no World Poker Championships. The random appearance of the material from which selection occurs does not make the entire process purely random.

The challenge to creationists who insist that selection occurs only through intelligence first is to demonstrate some extraterrestrial intelligence was ever on earth doing selecting in the past or doing it now. Your moaning about evolutionary theory is just a stupid appeal to incredulity.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 6:29:53 PM PDT
"It is not difficult to demonstrate mathematically that it is not possible to generate the information necessary for the first living cell through a random process, even one that is constrained."

Then do it. Make sure you prove that there are absolutely no constrained random process that could do it. None at all. Its not difficult, right? Then publish it. You will be famous. I read Nature and Science every week, so don't worry I won't miss it. ;o)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 6:46:52 PM PDT
RR says:
"it is not possible to generate the information necessary for the first living cell through a random process"

Which of course means it wasn't. So, there was some non-random process involved. Why don't you show us how your designer did it, rather than boring us with some ignorance-based Sherlock Holmes fallacy.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 7:04:52 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 7:07:50 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 7:09:16 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 7:10:00 PM PDT
"They can't refute the science of ID, so they just scream and rant against strawmn. "

No-one can refute the science of ID --- because there is no science there to refute.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 7:10:08 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 7:34:42 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 19, 2012 7:42:39 PM PDT
noman says:
RE: "Dr. Chaos says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Hide post again. (Show all ignored posts)]...It is not difficult to demonstrate mathematically that it is not possible to generate the information necessary for the first living cell through a random process, even one that is constrained."

**Provide the citation...journal, title of article, authors, page numbers, publication date, volume number.

In the mean time...in the real world...actual science:
****

"Evolution FAQ
Creationists often claim that the chances of a modern enzyme forming by random means are astronomically small, and therefore the chances of a complete bacterium (which is composed of hundreds or thousands of such enzymes & proteins) is so near to impossible that it would never happen in the 13 billion years or so since the universe took shape.

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.

The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?

If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.

Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed."
http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

****

"Self-Organization
03 Dec 2010 08:00

Something is self-organizing if, left to itself, it tends to become more organized. This is an unusual, indeed quite counter-intuitive property: we expect that, left to themselves, things get messy, and that when we encounter a very high degree of order, or an increase in order, something, someone, or at least some peculiar thing, is responsible. (This is the heart of the Argument from Design.) But we now know of many instances where this expectation is simply wrong, of things which can start in a highly random state and, without being shaped from the outside, become more and more organized. Thus self-organization, which I find to be one of the most interesting concepts in modern science --- if also one of the most nebulous, because the ideas of organization, pattern, order and so forth are, as used normally, quite vague.

Self-organization is not just something I find interesting, it's also my research topic. More exactly, I did my Ph.D. dissertation on quantitative measures of self-organization, especially in cellular automata; the idea was to remove some of the vagueness in the idea of organization, and so make self-organization at least a bit less nebulous. I've explained this at (doubtless excessive) length in my "Is the Primordial Soup Done Yet?", which is based on a talk I gave to Madison Chaos & Complexity Seminar in 1996, and which served as the basis for the first two chapters of my dissertation...."
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notabene/self-organization.html

****

Self-organization
Self-organization is a process where the organization (constraint, redundancy) of a system spontaneously increases, i.e. without this increase being controlled by the environment or an encompassing or otherwise external system

Self-organization is a basically a process of evolution where the effect of the environment is minimal, i.e. where the development of new, complex structures takes place primarily in and through the system itself. As argued in the section on evolutionary theory, self-organization can be understood on the basis of the same variation and natural selection processes as other, environmentally driven processes of evolution...."

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SELFORG.html

****

"Self Organization FAQ

1. Introduction

The scientific study of self-organising systems is a relatively recent field, although questions about how organisation arises have of course been raised since ancient times. The forms we see around us are just a minute sub-set of those theoretically possible, so why don't we see more variety ? It is to try to answer such questions that we study self-organisation. Many systems in nature show organisation e.g. galaxies, planets, compounds, cells, organisms and societies. Traditional scientific fields attempt to explain these features by reference to the micro properties or laws applicable to their component parts, for example gravitation or chemical bonds. Yet we can also approach the subject in a different way, looking instead for system properties that apply to all such collections of parts, regardless of size or nature. It is here that modern computers prove essential, by allowing us to investigate dynamic changes occuring over vast numbers of time steps, for large numbers of options..."
http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/archive/sosfaq.html

****
Thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life
K. Michaelian
Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ctó. de la Investigación Científica,
Cuidad Universitaria, C.P. 04510, Mexico

- Published: 11 March 2011
Abstract. Understanding the thermodynamic function of life may shed light on its origin. Life, as are all irreversible processes, is contingetit 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 transforrnation 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.

****

SUMMARY: You have a complete lack of understanding of probability, random vs. deterministic and how they are related, self organization, biology, chemistry, physics or literature search.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 7:35:45 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 7:37:05 PM PDT
Doc

You can't refute what isn't there.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 7:37:37 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  44
Total posts:  536
Initial post:  Jul 17, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions