Science Disproves Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2012, 08:40 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(25-08-2012 09:42 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(25-08-2012 09:14 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  Many biologist know that the physics of chemistry (QM) is a joke.

Name some reputable ones.

Still waiting, Bishadi.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 09:17 AM
Science Disproves Evolution
Pachy, is that you? Consider

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 06:50 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(26-08-2012 08:34 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I still have no idea what the hell "life at the molecular level" is,

i can see that.

ie... life, exists at the scale of atoms and energy.



This site is so fucked up with idiots, I am finding it difficult to return.

Does that concept makes sense?


i came across this:

"Schrödinger started his lecture with a key question and an interesting insight on it. The question was “How can the events in space and time, which take place within the boundaries of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?” It’s a pretty straightforward, simple question. Then he answered what he could at the time, “The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they will be accounted for by those sciences.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 07:14 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(26-08-2012 08:40 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(25-08-2012 09:42 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Name some reputable ones.

Still waiting, Bishadi.



This is something to read:


Quote:The subject of the lecture, the first of three called "What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell," was more interesting and much broader than the initially planned talk, "On the Mutation Rate Caused by X-Rays on the Fruit Fly, Drosophila melanogaster." Schrödinger had aimed his vast intuitive and analytical intelligence at one of the most ambitious possible questions—understanding life as a material system.

The opportunity to hear from this deity of science added to the stir in the lecture hall. Even Time magazine covered the lectures and in its April 5, 1943, issue wrote, "His soft, cheerful speech, his whimsical smile are engaging. And Dubliners are proud to have a Nobel Prize winner living among them" (Moore 1992, 395).

Schrödinger had been studying and refining the ideas in this first lecture for years. He wanted to know what accounted for the strange complexities taking place within living organisms. His father had been a serious amateur botanist, and a close friend from college had steered Schrödinger toward new and important readings in biology. He announced himself to his audience as a "naïve" physicist—despite being a world authority both on physiology and the biophysics of color vision. In the first few minutes, Schrödinger (1944, 3) announced the major theme of his first two lectures: that the essential part of a living cell—the chromosome—was a strange material, some sort of aperiodic crystal.

“In physics we have dealt hitherto only with periodic crystals. To a humble physicist's mind, these are very interesting and complicated objects; they constitute one of the most fascinating and complex material structures by which inanimate nature puzzles his wits. Yet, compared with the aperiodic crystal, they are rather plain and dull. The difference in structure is of the same kind as that between an ordinary wallpaper in which the same pattern is repeated again and again in regular periodicity and a masterpiece of embroidery, say a Raphael tapestry, which shows no dull repetition, but an elaborate, coherent, meaningful design traced by the great master.”

Schrödinger's focus on what makes progeny from parent, on an as yet unknown crystalline molecule within the chromosome, amounted to a scientific prediction of the nature of the gene. It would take James Watson and Francis Crick ten years to unravel the workings of this "aperiodic crystal"—and identify the hereditary, helical molecule as deoxyribonucleic acid—DNA. …

Schrödinger's third and final lecture introduced a thermodynamic consideration that led in time to what is now known as nonequilibrium thermodynamics. If before he had been talking about order from order—if before he had intimated that mutations had a stochastic component that was in keeping with the second law—he now turned to the question of order from disorder: how does the cell manage to escape the randomizing effects of the second law? After all, it is this escape that makes living forms startling replicants, almost magical three-dimensional copies of themselves.

Reminding his audience of the chemical means by which a small number of atoms control the cell, he asked, "How does an organism concentrate a stream of order on itself and thus escape the decay of atomic chaos mandated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics?"

Now Schrödinger would try to link life with the underlying theorems of thermodynamics. How is order ensured, given that systems of microparticles tend toward disorder? Schrödinger caught sight of the problem. Consider a copy machine: if you copy a copy, it gets dimmer; if you copy that copy, it gets dimmer and duller still. While organisms do lose features of their parents, their copying fidelity is astonishing; and they sometimes progress or improve, evolving complex refinements, sometimes whole new features. How do organisms perpetuate (and even increase) their organization in a universe governed by the second law? We call this "the Schrödinger paradox."

The basic resolution of the Schrödinger paradox is simple: Organisms continue to exist and grow by importing high-quality energy from outside their bodies. They feed on what Schrödinger termed "negative entropy"—the higher organization of light quanta from the sun. Because they are not isolated, or even closed systems, organisms—like sugar crystals forming in a supersaturated solution—increase their organization at the expense of the rise in entropy around them. The basic answer to the paradox has to do with context and hierarchy. Material and energy are transferred from one hierarchical level to another. To understand the growth of natural complex systems such as life, we have to look at what they are part of—the energy and environment around them. In the case of ecosystems and the biosphere, increasing organization and evolution on Earth requires disorganization and degradation elsewhere. You don't get something from nothing.

The spectacular rise of one side of Schrödinger's program—the genetic and informational—has been made at the expense of the other—the energetic and thermodynamic. We do not wish to take anything away from the tremendous success of inquiries into the genetic, languagelike aspect of life. But we do wish to advocate flipping over Schrödinger's record and listening to its other side. In the daring of his vision, what is important is not that Schrödinger made mistakes but that he called attention to the dual information- and energy-handling abilities of living beings—the organization they derived from their parents, on the one hand, and, on the other, the organization they maintain in spite of (and, as we will increasingly see, because of) the second law's mandate for systems to head toward equilibrium.

When we follow Schrödinger we find ways of looking through life to the energetic processes governing not only life but inanimate systems as well. Life's complexity is due not just to its chemical data processing, but to its function as an energy transformer. Indeed, life's DNA replication and RNA protein-building duties may have ridden into existence on a thermodynamic horse. Their roles make sense in the context of an earlier gradient-reducing function. Life is not just a genetic entity. Genes by themselves do nothing more than salt crystals. Life is an open, cycling system organized by the laws of thermodynamics. And it is not the only one

I know some of the material is perhaps new to some of you but no one can cure lazy people from getting off their asses and learning.

ie... the idiots are who equilibrate
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 07:26 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Bishadi Wrote:  Many biologist know that the physics of chemistry (QM) is a joke.
The MASS is causing the change, idiot.
F=ma has no causality.

Name two.
Mass does not cause change. Mass is actually precisely the opposite. mass is inertial resistance to accelleration, and or change.
"F=MA", followed by the words "has no causality", in the English language has no meaning. In fact is is more than "meaningless". It is a non-sequitur. Causality, and that equation have no relationship.
"Volumes of graphene" is nonsence. The volume assciated with graphene, is irrelevant. The mass of a certain amount of graphene, may or may not be important, depending what is attempting to do with it. Graphene is not measured by "volume" by any known field in science.

In short, we have at three possibilities here.
1. You are a troll, attempting to purposely have a meaningless set of interactions, with some who have good faith, because they are " good guys", but are actually doing some sort of "anger" behaviors, (and the "good guys" should just walk away, and put you on ignore), and stop feeding a troll.
2. Are a much much older person, whose "kooky" ideas have obviously been rejected by science, and thus has a huge chip on their shoulder about that.
3. Are a child, who has not studied science yet.

Whatever the answer, you need to be put on ignore.

Ta ta.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-08-2012, 07:35 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(27-08-2012 07:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Mass does not cause change. Mass is actually precisely the opposite. mass is inertial resistance to accelleration, and or change.

i claimed that mass is what causes energy to change and you are suggesting that mass 'what'?

For example a lenses does what with em? (see optics)

or a hot piece of iron is different than a cold one, by what?

Quote:"Volumes of graphene" is nonsence. The volume assciated with graphene, is irrelevant. The mass of a certain amount of graphene, may or may not be important, depending what is attempting to do with it. Graphene is not measured by "volume" by any known field in science.

wow.......


again, this site is full of assuming idiots.

my claim on this thread is that the physics of todays model cannot define living processes because I already know, the model of todays current paradigm of nature is wrong.

That's it.

And the funny part is, everyone of you, that does actually comprehend the sciences, knows the existing model is wrong, but its the best so far.

The only thing i can find 'good' about this group, is the title of the forum, represents and evolution.

that's is

because the people here, are worst than some of the political and religious idiots out there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 07:36 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
i will just post what i want

The spread of metastable reproducing cells, open systems organizing themselves and their immediate environment, trading gases and evolving ecosystems, was to push the entire biosphere away from thermodynamic equilibrium. Today we live on a planet whose surface is not in equilibrium, but energized, producing heat and pollution in its wake. The character and possibilities of life, not only as a planetary biological phenomenon, but also on the scale of our individual lives, cannot be properly appreciated without a working knowledge of the ways of energy. Yet as a scientific discipline, the thermodynamics of life—a subdiscipline of nonequilibrium thermodynamics—remains esoteric within science and virtually unknown to the public


and dont ask for references
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 07:37 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(27-08-2012 06:50 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(26-08-2012 08:34 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I still have no idea what the hell "life at the molecular level" is,

i can see that.

ie... life, exists at the scale of atoms and energy.



This site is so fucked up with idiots, I am finding it difficult to return.

Does that concept makes sense?


i came across this:

"Schrödinger started his lecture with a key question and an interesting insight on it. The question was “How can the events in space and time, which take place within the boundaries of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?” It’s a pretty straightforward, simple question. Then he answered what he could at the time, “The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they will be accounted for by those sciences.”

There is no life at the molecular level - molecules aren't alive in any sense. Life is an emergent property of orderly collections of molecules.

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
27-08-2012, 07:41 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(27-08-2012 07:36 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  i will just post what i want

The spread of metastable reproducing cells, open systems organizing themselves and their immediate environment, trading gases and evolving ecosystems, was to push the entire biosphere away from thermodynamic equilibrium. Today we live on a planet whose surface is not in equilibrium, but energized, producing heat and pollution in its wake. The character and possibilities of life, not only as a planetary biological phenomenon, but also on the scale of our individual lives, cannot be properly appreciated without a working knowledge of the ways of energy. Yet as a scientific discipline, the thermodynamics of life—a subdiscipline of nonequilibrium thermodynamics—remains esoteric within science and virtually unknown to the public


and dont ask for references

That was fine until the last sentence. Life is ultimately powered by sunlight or exothermic chemical reactions. There is nothing esoteric about 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
27-08-2012, 08:20 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(27-08-2012 06:50 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(26-08-2012 08:34 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I still have no idea what the hell "life at the molecular level" is,

i can see that.

ie... life, exists at the scale of atoms and energy.



This site is so fucked up with idiots, I am finding it difficult to return.

Does that concept makes sense?


i came across this:

"Schrödinger started his lecture with a key question and an interesting insight on it. The question was “How can the events in space and time, which take place within the boundaries of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?” It’s a pretty straightforward, simple question. Then he answered what he could at the time, “The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they will be accounted for by those sciences.”

definition of LIFE

1
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional plant or animal from a dead body
b : a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2
a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
b : a specific part or aspect of the process of living <sex life> <adult life>

Life does not exist at the molecular level. Life can interact with matter and energy at scales down to the molecular and atomic level, but that does not make it "molecular life" anymore than a single rock at the top of the Himalayas is a mountain.

Your ad hominem's are annoying. Please avoid such absurdities if you wish to engage in debate.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: