Logic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: Logic
(04-11-2015 10:31 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(02-11-2015 01:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I certainly understand, however, "interacting groups of molecules, and so on" hardly explains how the first life simultaneously developed the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest, etc. No.


Why does life have to simultaneously develop the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest ?

The only reliable definition of life is that it has a metabolism.

You are displaying the typical theist mentality of binary thinking, unable to think outside of discrete states.

Molecules aggregated to become proto-life which eventually formed into life as we recognise it today.

All that is required for a metabolism to develop is for some source of free energy to be sub/con- sumed and to produce work. Excretion is a natural consequence because a waste product will be left behind. Replication and then evolution can come afterwards because it will make the process more efficient.

You are of course begging the question re: proto-life becoming life. Please tell us how that occurred.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2015, 01:55 PM
RE: Logic
(12-11-2015 11:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 10:31 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Why does life have to simultaneously develop the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest ?

The only reliable definition of life is that it has a metabolism.

You are displaying the typical theist mentality of binary thinking, unable to think outside of discrete states.

Molecules aggregated to become proto-life which eventually formed into life as we recognise it today.

All that is required for a metabolism to develop is for some source of free energy to be sub/con- sumed and to produce work. Excretion is a natural consequence because a waste product will be left behind. Replication and then evolution can come afterwards because it will make the process more efficient.

You are of course begging the question re: proto-life becoming life. Please tell us how that occurred.

Please define the dividing line between proto-life and life.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Logic
(12-11-2015 01:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 11:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are of course begging the question re: proto-life becoming life. Please tell us how that occurred.

Please define the dividing line between proto-life and life.

Happily. Life has multiple systems that work in synchronicity and that either were evolved or created simultaneously.

Also, yes, Chas, incredulity, even implausibility, is not an answer. But many have noted the statistical impossibility touching this sort of simultaneous complex system evolution.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: Logic
(13-11-2015 01:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-11-2015 01:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please define the dividing line between proto-life and life.

Happily. Life has multiple systems that work in synchronicity and that either were evolved or created simultaneously.

Also, yes, Chas, incredulity, even implausibility, is not an answer. But many have noted the statistical impossibility touching this sort of simultaneous complex system evolution.

"simultaneous complex system evolution" is a straw man. Read an actual book on evolution, not whatever tripe you have been reading.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-11-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: Logic
double post. This seems to happen when trying to post too soon after another post.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 11:05 AM
RE: Logic
(13-11-2015 02:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-11-2015 01:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Happily. Life has multiple systems that work in synchronicity and that either were evolved or created simultaneously.

Also, yes, Chas, incredulity, even implausibility, is not an answer. But many have noted the statistical impossibility touching this sort of simultaneous complex system evolution.

"simultaneous complex system evolution" is a straw man. Read an actual book on evolution, not whatever tripe you have been reading.

It isn't a straw man. If you or I have some but not all of these systems, we die/do not propagate.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Logic
(16-11-2015 11:05 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-11-2015 02:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  "simultaneous complex system evolution" is a straw man. Read an actual book on evolution, not whatever tripe you have been reading.

It isn't a straw man. If you or I have some but not all of these systems, we die/do not propagate.

We are organisms that are the result of 3,500,000,000 years of evolution.

Read a science book because you have only a cartoon knowledge of it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2015, 12:10 PM
RE: Logic
(16-11-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-11-2015 11:05 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It isn't a straw man. If you or I have some but not all of these systems, we die/do not propagate.

We are organisms that are the result of 3,500,000,000 years of evolution.

Read a science book because you have only a cartoon knowledge of it.

I just looked at some new papers and websites today on the issues. Yes, WE are organisms that you claim are resultant of many years of evolution but the first multicellular, multi-system organisms were created by processes that defy the "abilities" of mechanistic evolution.

You know as well as I that my statement can be applied to the first complex life as well as to us. Scientists have, they believe, fostered an understanding of how the first life reproduced, but are yet to account for the multiple cross-reliant systems that would have had to appear simultaneously. Do you deny this?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2015, 12:25 PM
RE: Logic
(17-11-2015 12:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-11-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  We are organisms that are the result of 3,500,000,000 years of evolution.

Read a science book because you have only a cartoon knowledge of it.

I just looked at some new papers and websites today on the issues. Yes, WE are organisms that you claim are resultant of many years of evolution but the first multicellular, multi-system organisms were created by processes that defy the "abilities" of mechanistic evolution.

You know as well as I that my statement can be applied to the first complex life as well as to us. Scientists have, they believe, fostered an understanding of how the first life reproduced, but are yet to account for the multiple cross-reliant systems that would have had to appear simultaneously. Do you deny this?

You say this about the "abilities" because? What are said "abilities" that are so struggling. There, despite seemingly some action like it's not, many ranges and complexities in single celled organisms, including types of it that bundle up together in a collective group(kinda like insects via a metaphor) and through those functionings, something singular becomes apart of the whole and can be impacting it's environment in more than it's own action.

They don't have an account for something that is demonstrably not how things HAVE to function.. so yes, you're right about the element that you're wrong about to assume is a factor.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: Logic
(17-11-2015 12:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-11-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  We are organisms that are the result of 3,500,000,000 years of evolution.

Read a science book because you have only a cartoon knowledge of it.

I just looked at some new papers and websites today on the issues.

Oh, do tell. Which ones?

Quote:Yes, WE are organisms that you claim are resultant of many years of evolution but the first multicellular, multi-system organisms were created by processes that defy the "abilities" of mechanistic evolution.

What is your evidence beyond personal incredulity?

Quote:You know as well as I that my statement can be applied to the first complex life as well as to us.

Then you should have said so instead of using a ridiculous and erroneous example.

Quote:Scientists have, they believe, fostered an understanding of how the first life reproduced, but are yet to account for the multiple cross-reliant systems that would have had to appear simultaneously. Do you deny this?

Yes, I deny this. There are many accounts of how complex systems can come about.
If you had ever read a book by an actual evolutionary biologist you would know this.

We can trace the emergence lungs, for instance, from swim bladder to proto-lung to lung.

Eyes are dead simple - we observe eyes of degrees of complexity from light sensitive cells to the eye of the hawk.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: