The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2016, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 12:48 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 11:35 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 11:02 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Except you can't and you didn't. You're incompetent.
I'll take a Nobel laureate over the likes of you any day.
You're clearly here to push the BS of creationism.

"nucleic acids are unstable outside of a cell"
Hahahaha. They exist INSIDE of cells, and replicate, and promote protein synthesis there. We don't need them to be "stable outside of cells", (which leads one to think you know nothing at all about Biology and Biochemistry).
He explained how membranes formed, 9or could have formed).

You have not made ANY specific refutations of his specific chemistry.


ALL your bullshit boils down to "we don't know, therefore GAWD".

That movie is old. Please look into the latest research on abiogenesis. If yiou still think it is plausible, fine. Then at least you will be able to defend your beliefs in your own words without having to point to an old outdated video. When I look into it, it is implausible. Then when you layer on the chemistry/thermodynamic forces AGIANST life forming, it is a compelling argument.

I don't care if it's "old". You refuted nothing specific about the chemistry, never said what's "outdated" about it, and in fact made a fundamental error about DNA/RNA "outside of cells". You asked about membranes. Yet it explains their formation. No one cares if you think it's implausible. You did not present any specifics with respect to the chemistry, as you can't.

We know from Chaos Theory, that "order" forms spontaneously in this universe, and you have nothing to refute it, except your lame "cuz thermodynamics", (and of course "therefore gawd").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

You can't seriously be still spouting that "irreducible complexity" bullshit.

Quote:The by-products of necessary reactions prevent other necessary reactions
Despite decades of research, RNA has not been demonstrated to replicate itself.

Too bad for you, but it has. You just didn't know it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...173205.htm

Quote:Under controlled lab conditions and pure concentrated chemicals, it peeters out and doesn't finish.

Nope. See above.

Quote:He starts with RNA, but the real trick is getting to RNA or DNA from simple chemistry. No naturally occurring replicator molecule has ever been found outside the cell. the ones that were synthesized were tiny and petered out after a few cycles. (That was in a controlled lab environment with perfect conditions.) Most critically is that when they were modified to simulate mutation, they did not replicate.

References to everything required.

Quote:I could go on and on and on.

Apaprently you think you can ... however when this crap is examined carefully you have nothing ... at all.

Quote:After Leslie Orgel died basically admitting that he had no clue, few people are taking his place.

All it takes is one, and I gave you one.

Quote:They have to bribe people to perform research in that area because 100 years of research have all but slammed the door. (It is only still alive because it is impossible to prove a negative.)

No one is bribing Szostack.

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
05-07-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 11:44 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Having energy available does not mean a reaction will occur. If a reaction increases entropy it will. (Heat a gas and see it expand.) But it won't if the entropy is decreased.

1) shaking/squeezing the bottle = adding energy (?)
2) liquid entropy > ice/crystal entropy (?)
3) (added) energy is availiable, reaction occurs, which decreases entropy (?)




Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 12:40 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:06 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 12:02 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I understand the difference between abiogensis and evolution.
It is not that we don't know. It is that life violates the drives of chemistry. If you were to take all of the atoms of any life form, put them in a jar and shake them up for eons, the laws of chemistry dictate that you would never see life. The atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy in their constituents.

At work.

Two false thinfs above.

1 Life does not violate chemisty. Scientists understand the chemistry that 'is' life. The atp reaction for quick example.

2 Boeing from hurrican is argument from ignorance and poor form.

No time for longer. Sad
We understand the chemistry of the Krebs cycle. That still does not explain how something could violate the basic drives of chemistry.
This is not the layman argument related to entropy. It is based on hard science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 12:45 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
At work.

As others better educated than my self have pointed out 'Life' doesn't violate chemistry.

Your quibble seems to be with Abiogenesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 12:46 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 11:35 AM)u196533 Wrote:  That movie is old. Please look into the latest research on abiogenesis. If yiou still think it is plausible, fine. Then at least you will be able to defend your beliefs in your own words without having to point to an old outdated video. When I look into it, it is implausible. Then when you layer on the chemistry/thermodynamic forces AGIANST life forming, it is a compelling argument.

I don't care if it's "old". You refuted nothing specific about the chemistry, never said what's "outdated" about it, and in fact made a fundamental error about DNA/RNA "outside of cells". You asked about membranes. Yet it explains their formation. No one cares if you think it's implausible. You did not present any specifics with respect to the chemistry, as you can't.

We know from Chaos Theory, that "order" forms spontaneously in this universe, and you have nothing to refute it, except your lame "cuz thermodynamics", (and of course "therefore gawd").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

He presented high level theories, not hard chemistry with experiments/ results. I could easily provide other high level videos that take the opposite view but won't waste your time.
He doesn't even attempt to address the really hard question related to RNA forming from a replicator molecule because they don't even have a wild ass guesstimate.
Sure order forms spontaneously. Then it falls apart without an external force adding energy and forcing it to remain in a state of dis-equilibrium.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 12:52 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:45 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

As others better educated than my self have pointed out 'Life' doesn't violate chemistry.

Your quibble seems to be with Abiogenesis.

My 2 cents. His quibble seems to be that there are questions science has not found an answer for, the merits of the examples he raises not withstanding.

A classic argument from ignorance.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 12:53 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 12:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't care if it's "old". You refuted nothing specific about the chemistry, never said what's "outdated" about it, and in fact made a fundamental error about DNA/RNA "outside of cells". You asked about membranes. Yet it explains their formation. No one cares if you think it's implausible. You did not present any specifics with respect to the chemistry, as you can't.

We know from Chaos Theory, that "order" forms spontaneously in this universe, and you have nothing to refute it, except your lame "cuz thermodynamics", (and of course "therefore gawd").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

He presented high level theories, not hard chemistry with experiments/ results. I could easily provide other high level videos that take the opposite view but won't waste your time.
He doesn't even attempt to address the really hard question related to RNA forming from a replicator molecule because they don't even have a wild ass guesstimate.
Sure order forms spontaneously. Then it falls apart without an external force adding energy and forcing it to remain in a state of dis-equilibrium.

Feel free to present your "claimed" higher level videos.
You have none.
He did present experiments results. You have no clue what you're on about. Your bullshit about "order falls apart" is total crap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
You have NO CLUE what you're pretending to know how to talk about. A total fraud. A fake.

You're flat out WRONG about RNA.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...173205.htm

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
05-07-2016, 12:57 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 11:35 AM)u196533 Wrote:  That movie is old. Please look into the latest research on abiogenesis. If yiou still think it is plausible, fine. Then at least you will be able to defend your beliefs in your own words without having to point to an old outdated video. When I look into it, it is implausible. Then when you layer on the chemistry/thermodynamic forces AGIANST life forming, it is a compelling argument.

I don't care if it's "old". You refuted nothing specific about the chemistry, never said what's "outdated" about it, and in fact made a fundamental error about DNA/RNA "outside of cells". You asked about membranes. Yet it explains their formation. No one cares if you think it's implausible. You did not present any specifics with respect to the chemistry, as you can't.

We know from Chaos Theory, that "order" forms spontaneously in this universe, and you have nothing to refute it, except your lame "cuz thermodynamics", (and of course "therefore gawd").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

You can't seriously be still spouting that "irreducible complexity" bullshit.

Quote:The by-products of necessary reactions prevent other necessary reactions
Despite decades of research, RNA has not been demonstrated to replicate itself.

Too bad for you, but it has. You just didn't know it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...173205.htm

Quote:Under controlled lab conditions and pure concentrated chemicals, it peeters out and doesn't finish.

Nope. See above.

Quote:He starts with RNA, but the real trick is getting to RNA or DNA from simple chemistry. No naturally occurring replicator molecule has ever been found outside the cell. the ones that were synthesized were tiny and petered out after a few cycles. (That was in a controlled lab environment with perfect conditions.) Most critically is that when they were modified to simulate mutation, they did not replicate.

References to everything required.

Quote:I could go on and on and on.

Apaprently you think you can ... however when this crap is examined carefully you have nothing ... at all.

Quote:After Leslie Orgel died basically admitting that he had no clue, few people are taking his place.

All it takes is one, and I gave you one.

Quote:They have to bribe people to perform research in that area because 100 years of research have all but slammed the door. (It is only still alive because it is impossible to prove a negative.)

No one is bribing Szostack.
That was an RNA enzyme. Not a complete RNA strand. It is not my responsibility to prove abiogensis. I have been following the research for almost 20 years and found nothing in the last 70 years that strongly support it. There is a mountain of evidence so suggest it cannot happen naturally.

few people are taking his place. I'll bet Szostack is after the $1M prize.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 12:58 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Sure order forms spontaneously. Then it falls apart without an external force adding energy and forcing it to remain in a state of dis-equilibrium.

You seem to be claiming that Earth doesn't have such an external force, but it does: the Sun, for example. The Second Law cannot be applied to Earth. We're not a closed system.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 01:00 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:13 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 11:44 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Having energy available does not mean a reaction will occur. If a reaction increases entropy it will. (Heat a gas and see it expand.) But it won't if the entropy is decreased.

1) shaking/squeezing the bottle = adding energy (?)
2) liquid entropy > ice/crystal entropy (?)
3) (added) energy is availiable, reaction occurs, which decreases entropy (?)




There was a lot of energy/outside influence to set up the experiment before that the camera started rolling. Something that is supercooled is in a state of disequilibrium. It would eventually reach equilibrium and freeze by itself. Squeezing the bottle sped up the reaction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: