The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-07-2016, 01:52 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 12:23 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 08:28 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "I was not suggesting that abiogenesis started in a jar."

No, you were suggesting something equally as stupid. You were suggesting that life requires supernature in order to begin because you fail to understand chemistry and biology.

"At some point in the history of life on earth, a self-ordering, autocatalytic chemical system had to develop characteristics to which selfishness could be attributed. "

Evolution. It's called "evolution." That's the theory we use to describe how life changes over time. Once the first living organism is on Earth, it evolves.

"The story starts with a molecule that replicates and evolves into RNA/DNA."

No, you're straw man starts with that.

Life starts with redox chemistry.

"It miraculously obtains a method to metabolize food and somewhere along that path life begins. "

Now your ignorance is showing. You do realize that not all living things generate energy the same way, right? Photoautotrophs and chemoautotrophs do just fine without needing to find and metabolize "food."

"The problem is that the driving energy and/or the chemicals needed for reaction would have had to exhaust themselves at some point in a process that took millions of years."

That isn't even close to being true. Do you know how large Earth is and how widely available the reactants necessary for redox reactions are? Your statement would mean that life can never survive on Earth for more than "millions of years" and yet evidence for life goes back almost 3 billion years. Laugh out load

"I can imagine some goldilocks environment where all the necessary chemicals and energy were force fed for some period of time, but at some point the chemicals and energy would have been cut off. "

Your imagination runs wild with presuppositionalist scenarios.

"At that point those pre-biotic replicator molecules should have simply ceased to exist. Instead those autocatalytic chemicals must have had to manipulate the environment in order to extract energy in an act of self-preservation. "

Simple organisms (like that of bacteria or a virus or whatever the first living thing was) don't "act" out of "self-preservation." You are assigning consciousness to living things that do not possess it.

But once again, EVOLUTION is the process by which living things change over time and adapt to their environment. YOU assert that evolution adapts the environment to the living organisms, which isn't what evolution does.

Living things do modify the environment in which they live, including food webs whereby organisms use one another to subsist and survive. But this is a byproduct of life, not a conscious effort on its part (very few organisms intentionally manipulate the environment in which they live).

Chemistry and thermodynamics dictate that a chemical system won’t spontaneously extract energy from the environment in order to lower it’s entropy."

Once again, the redox chemistry that formed the basis of life is no different than any other redox reaction. Are you now suggesting that chemists and biologists believe that redox reactions "spontaneously extract energy from the environment" in order to "lower entropy?"

Yet again, you arrogantly assert that chemists and biologists don't know basic redox chemistry, when the opposite is more obviously true.

"While the will to live/self-preservation can be rationalized in a sentient being, it can’t be naturally explained in a simple organism or the replicator molecules. Dawkins describes a selfish, replicator molecule emerging. However, selfishness and replication are 2 independent attributes. He glosses over the selfish aspect and takes it for granted. (I am convinced he did so due to his a priori commitment to atheism.) The fact that Dawkins, a great story teller, did not even attempt to create a semi-plausible story to explain that speaks volumes.
Selfishness cannot simply be assumed. A chemical system developing the impetus not merely to replicate, but to persist against death cannot be explained. No other inorganic self-ordering, autocatalytic, structures does that. A candle flame, a hurricane, or a Bénard cell does not seek resources when the material conditions needed to continue run out; they cease."


Now you are straw manning Dawkins. Hint: when Dawkins uses the word "selfish" he is being very specific about what he means and why.

"In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally) to imply that they are driven by any motives or will, but merely that their effects can be metaphorically and pedagogically described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that are passed on are the ones whose evolutionary consequences serve their own implicit interest (to continue the anthropomorphism) in being replicated, not necessarily those of the organism. In later work, Dawkins brings evolutionary "selfishness" down to creation of a widely proliferated extended phenotype.[8]" from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfis...h.22_genes

"Living things do so until all options are exhausted. Some of the simplest organisms engage in elaborate behaviors to forestall death."

You continue to assign conscious qualities to non-sentient living things.





Which scenario do you think more likely:
1) you understand and grasp the science of evolution and abiogenesis better than the scientists who study and research it (including the likes of Dawkins)
2) you think you understand it better but your frail grasp on it is based on only a very basic understanding of the science from which you extrapolate some sort of expertise.

You are picking at specific words and creating tangents or strawmen based on a single word. Replace the term selfishness with self-preservation and the words “manipulate the environment” with “extract energy from the environment”. The basic concept is that living things seek energy to lower entropy. This can be rationalized in a sentient being as self –preservation. (It is an emergent property so science/reductionism will never be able to explain self –preservation.) However, it cannot be explained in the simple chemical systems envisioned in the process of abiogenesis. When non-living things run out of energy/driing force, they cease and fall apart. Why did simple replicator molecules and other prebiotic chemical systems seek energy (food)? They should have just succumbed to chemistry and decomposed to lower their energy and increase their entropy.

The process of going from replicator molecule to some primitive life form prior to photosynthesis was an uphill battle against entropy. Sure some links in the chain may have been thermodynamically favorable. But overall these reactions would not have been favorable since the final endpoint is clearly in a lower state of entropy and a higher state of energy than a the starting point of a simple replicator molecule.
The process would have taken millions of years, and involved billions or trillions of reactions. I can imagine a Goldilocks environment for some period of time. Enough heat to facilitate the reactions, but not enough to destabilize the molecules, coupled with the perfect stew of chemicals to drive these reactions. (The perfect stew would need to change in concert as the molecules evolved. Also molecular evolution is not supported by the research data) However, Goldilocks could not have been maintained for millions of years. At some point, those chemicals would need to consistently seek energy in order to lower their energy as living things do.

Pointing to the sun (or hydrothermal vents) is naïve. Sure the heat would have been a necessary component without which endothermic reactions could not occur. However, the presence of energy/heat does not mean that they WILL occur. Actually if you spend a minute looking at the Gibbs Free energy equation you will realize that increasing the temp actually impedes a reaction in which the entropy is lowered. (E.g. Adding heat energy makes it harder to compress balloon.) When applied, the heat would have been an enabler, not a driving force.

The emergence of self-preservation clearly had to have occurred for abiogenesis to occur naturally. However, it is nowhere in the literature. It is completely ignored.

You've selected option #2. You clearly believe you know more about science than scientists (you've demonstrated this before by telling me what paleontologists study and research and believe. Quite arrogant to tell a paleontologist that, no? Especially one who studies the linkages between livin organisms and the environment. I'm sure this doesn't interest you. Go back to your straw men and red herrings Drinking Beverage )

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-07-2016, 02:02 PM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2016 02:23 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 01:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I don't know what the absolute boundary is, and it is not relevant to this discussion.
You can't possibly be serious ? YOU have been saying all along in this thread that "life this and life that" in terms of what it requires and does. And NOW, we find you can't even tell us what it is ? OMG. You are a fake.

Quote:Why doesn't an amoeba just stop taking on energy and cease like any other chemical system would?
Science has never answered that and it is not addressed in the literature. Science cannot explain why the chemicals in a living systems behave differently than those in inanimate objects.

Yes it can, and yes it has. DNA. Evolved systems employ DNA. You have NO understanding of Biochemistry.
DNA encodes for structures, behaviors, memories, reflexes, instinctual behaviors, etc etc. You need to take Biology 101, and not from a fool creationist.

And BTW, "appeal to authority" is a fallacy and invalid ONLY if the "authority" is in some other field, than the one in question. You say everything you can't answer is "strawman". LOL.
(I get you people like to pretend to be "logical" and pretend to know about Logic).
In fact Szostack is one of the leading authorities IN THIS FIELD in the world, so an appeal to what he knows and says, is perfectly legitimate, (as opposed to you, you who are a total amateur), and know next to nothing about Biology and Biochemistry.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-07-2016, 02:04 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 01:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 12:23 PM)u196533 Wrote:  You are picking at specific words and creating tangents or strawmen based on a single word. Replace the term selfishness with self-preservation and the words “manipulate the environment” with “extract energy from the environment”. The basic concept is that living things seek energy to lower entropy. This can be rationalized in a sentient being as self –preservation. (It is an emergent property so science/reductionism will never be able to explain self –preservation.) However, it cannot be explained in the simple chemical systems envisioned in the process of abiogenesis. When non-living things run out of energy/driing force, they cease and fall apart. Why did simple replicator molecules and other prebiotic chemical systems seek energy (food)? They should have just succumbed to chemistry and decomposed to lower their energy and increase their entropy.

The process of going from replicator molecule to some primitive life form prior to photosynthesis was an uphill battle against entropy. Sure some links in the chain may have been thermodynamically favorable. But overall these reactions would not have been favorable since the final endpoint is clearly in a lower state of entropy and a higher state of energy than a the starting point of a simple replicator molecule.
The process would have taken millions of years, and involved billions or trillions of reactions. I can imagine a Goldilocks environment for some period of time. Enough heat to facilitate the reactions, but not enough to destabilize the molecules, coupled with the perfect stew of chemicals to drive these reactions. (The perfect stew would need to change in concert as the molecules evolved. Also molecular evolution is not supported by the research data) However, Goldilocks could not have been maintained for millions of years. At some point, those chemicals would need to consistently seek energy in order to lower their energy as living things do.

Pointing to the sun (or hydrothermal vents) is naïve. Sure the heat would have been a necessary component without which endothermic reactions could not occur. However, the presence of energy/heat does not mean that they WILL occur. Actually if you spend a minute looking at the Gibbs Free energy equation you will realize that increasing the temp actually impedes a reaction in which the entropy is lowered. (E.g. Adding heat energy makes it harder to compress balloon.) When applied, the heat would have been an enabler, not a driving force.

The emergence of self-preservation clearly had to have occurred for abiogenesis to occur naturally. However, it is nowhere in the literature. It is completely ignored.

You've selected option #2. You clearly believe you know more about science than scientists (you've demonstrated this before by telling me what paleontologists study and research and believe. Quite arrogant to tell a paleontologist that, no? Especially one who studies the linkages between livin organisms and the environment. I'm sure this doesn't interest you. Go back to your straw men and red herrings Drinking Beverage )

You cannot refute my argument so you resort to appeals to authority and ad hominum attacks.
My questions are not being asked so how could most scientists answer them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2016, 02:09 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 02:04 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 01:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You've selected option #2. You clearly believe you know more about science than scientists (you've demonstrated this before by telling me what paleontologists study and research and believe. Quite arrogant to tell a paleontologist that, no? Especially one who studies the linkages between livin organisms and the environment. I'm sure this doesn't interest you. Go back to your straw men and red herrings Drinking Beverage )

You cannot refute my argument so you resort to appeals to authority and ad hominum attacks.
My questions are not being asked so how could most scientists answer them?

Yes. Aren't you just so special.

Always the pretend (knee-jerk) fallacies.

strawman
ad hominems
appeal to authority

yawn


Another idiot theist suffering from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2...ger_effect

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
06-07-2016, 02:14 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 02:04 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 01:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You've selected option #2. You clearly believe you know more about science than scientists (you've demonstrated this before by telling me what paleontologists study and research and believe. Quite arrogant to tell a paleontologist that, no? Especially one who studies the linkages between livin organisms and the environment. I'm sure this doesn't interest you. Go back to your straw men and red herrings Drinking Beverage )

You cannot refute my argument so you resort to appeals to authority and ad hominum attacks.
My questions are not being asked so how could most scientists answer them?

Your arguments have already been refuted. Playing with words and asserting that your understanding (and your asinine questions) are above the level of those of us who actually do scientific research, is moronic. It's not an appeal to authority to assert that I AM an authority with respect to science (particularly with respect to geology and paleontology).

Despite what your mother and teachers told you, there are such things as stupid questions. You presupposing that life's origins require supernature because of your ignorance of chemistry, biochemistry, biology, evolution, geology, and paleontology, doesn't mean you're an expert in anything or asking relevant questions.

And dismissing different parts of abiogenesis hypotheses (like hydrothermal vents for example) because you consider it "naive" (whatever the fuck that means in the context you've used it) doesn't make you sound smart, it makes you sound desperate to simply dismiss that which you can't rationalize with your presuppositionalist bullshit.

Carry on with the fallacies Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-07-2016, 02:18 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
You're strawmanning science, and they are trying to tell you that.

You have made numerous, and to me astounding, misrepresentations of what science actually claims, and how the physics of Atomic Theory work (and a host of others).

They are not trying to "argue from authority", but asking you why you feel you have a good enough grasp on biochemistry (when even we here who have a much more basic grasp of biochem than those experts can see that you do not) to say that the top scientists in the field are delusional.

The much more likely explanation, which you should seriously take a moment to consider, is that:

1) You do not have a sufficient grasp of the material,
2) You are listening to a group of people who also do not have a sufficient grasp of the material,
3) That group of people have a clear agenda to discredit science in order to support religious suppositions, and
4) Top-level evolutionary biologists are comprised of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., as well as atheists, while people who try to present straw-man versions of biology are, without fail, members of religious traditions who feel their faith is threatened by the discoveries of science.

What you are doing in your protestations here, very clearly, is covering your ears with your hands and shouting, "Is not is not!" instead of trying to grasp what the replies to your questions are saying.

For the record, I find your misrepresentation of thermodynamics as it relates to biochemistry most egregious.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-07-2016, 02:25 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Actually he's "straw-manning" appeal to authority also. (It does have a legitimate use).
Tongue

Big Grin

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
06-07-2016, 02:32 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 02:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your arguments have already been refuted. Playing with words and asserting that your understanding (and your asinine questions) are above the level of those of us who actually do scientific research, is moronic. It's not an appeal to authority to assert that I AM an authority with respect to science (particularly with respect to geology and paleontology).

Despite what your mother and teachers told you, there are such things as stupid questions. You presupposing that life's origins require supernature because of your ignorance of chemistry, biochemistry, biology, evolution, geology, and paleontology, doesn't mean you're an expert in anything or asking relevant questions.

And dismissing different parts of abiogenesis hypotheses (like hydrothermal vents for example) because you consider it "naive" (whatever the fuck that means in the context you've used it) doesn't make you sound smart, it makes you sound desperate to simply dismiss that which you can't rationalize with your presuppositionalist bullshit.

Carry on with the fallacies Drinking Beverage

Did you hear the one about the Creationist who walks into a room full of biologists, organic chemists, physicists, geologists, and paleontologists and tells them all that he knows more than they do about their fields of research?

(I don't know the end of this joke... apparently, it's still being told.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-07-2016, 02:39 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 02:32 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 02:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your arguments have already been refuted. Playing with words and asserting that your understanding (and your asinine questions) are above the level of those of us who actually do scientific research, is moronic. It's not an appeal to authority to assert that I AM an authority with respect to science (particularly with respect to geology and paleontology).

Despite what your mother and teachers told you, there are such things as stupid questions. You presupposing that life's origins require supernature because of your ignorance of chemistry, biochemistry, biology, evolution, geology, and paleontology, doesn't mean you're an expert in anything or asking relevant questions.

And dismissing different parts of abiogenesis hypotheses (like hydrothermal vents for example) because you consider it "naive" (whatever the fuck that means in the context you've used it) doesn't make you sound smart, it makes you sound desperate to simply dismiss that which you can't rationalize with your presuppositionalist bullshit.

Carry on with the fallacies Drinking Beverage

Did you hear the one about the Creationist who walks into a room full of biologists, organic chemists, physicists, geologists, and paleontologists and tells them all that he knows more than they do about their fields of research?

(I don't know the end of this joke... apparently, it's still being told.)

You just wrote the entire screenplay for "God's not dead 3: fucking scientists"

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
06-07-2016, 02:48 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 01:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Why doesn't an amoeba just stop taking on energy and cease like any other chemical system would?
Science has never answered that and it is not addressed in the literature. Science cannot explain why the chemicals in a living systems behave differently than those in inanimate objects.

Locomotion of amoeba occurs due to the sol-gel conversion of the cytoplasm within its cell. The ectoplasm being called the plasma gel and the endoplasm the plasma sol. 'Sol-gel conversion is the contraction and relaxation events which are enforced by osmotic pressure and other ionic charges

sol-gel process

Seems quite similar to me

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TechnoMonkey's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: