The missing ingredient is ... probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
The first article in the search that has to do with abiogenesis of life is:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

Check out the source...you'll love it...it's a way of life...
Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 03:10 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 02:22 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  You may have noticed the "scholar" part of that search... Google Scholar is a fantastic way to find things of a technical nature. You know, the types of articles that appear in peer reviewed publications. i.e. exactly what you were asking for.
Er, if it's so fantastic, why doesn't the first hit have anything to do with the topic at hand? Consider

Wow did those goal posts shift at light speed. You asked for peer reviewed evidence and I gave it to you. Criticizing my search query and what the first result was is simply you deflecting the issue. Read the evidence, come up with a refutation, or shut the fuck up. Ignoring the plethora of articles that are related that DID come up is beyond disingenuous.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes itsnotmeitsyou's post
25-02-2014, 03:22 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2014 03:29 PM by rampant.a.i..)
The missing ingredient is ... probability
"They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”"

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/

http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n....1086.html

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918...c333fe7f95

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...173205.htm

http://m.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

Perhaps your Abiogenesis question would be better suited for a thread about Abiogenesis.

It's a common Theist mistake to believe science is only valid with an origin of life theory, when no such theory is necessary for scientific inquiry to be valid.

It's a wonderful illustration of the significant difficulty Theists have with probability: They present a story of the origin of life with no proof or evidence to support it, and assert it is more valid than theories with empirical evidence behind them.

Theists don't seem to understand the burden of proof, evidence, or why presenting a false dilemma is unscientific, unfounded, and simply wrong.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
25-02-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 03:20 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Wow did those goal posts shift at light speed. You asked for peer reviewed evidence and I gave it to you. Criticizing my search query and what the first result was is simply you deflecting the issue. Read the evidence, come up with a refutation, or shut the fuck up. Ignoring the plethora of articles that are related that DID come up is beyond disingenuous.
Facepalm Dude, the first page was all articles on abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons and had nothing to do with the abiogenesis of life, except for one, which was from answers in genesis. Face it, you screwed up. But it was a great laugh for me, so thanks! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 03:46 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2014 03:49 PM by rampant.a.i..)
The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 03:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 03:20 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Wow did those goal posts shift at light speed. You asked for peer reviewed evidence and I gave it to you. Criticizing my search query and what the first result was is simply you deflecting the issue. Read the evidence, come up with a refutation, or shut the fuck up. Ignoring the plethora of articles that are related that DID come up is beyond disingenuous.
Facepalm Dude, the first page was all articles on abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons and had nothing to do with the abiogenesis of life, except for one, which was from answers in genesis. Face it, you screwed up. But it was a great laugh for me, so thanks! Smile

This from the poster claiming formation of hydrocarbons have "nothing do do with the abiogenesis of life".

"Hey, this article is all about organic compounds formin'! It ain't got nothin' to do with life! This is clear proof my "Life was created by a space wizard" theory been right all along!"

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 05:43 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 03:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 03:20 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Wow did those goal posts shift at light speed. You asked for peer reviewed evidence and I gave it to you. Criticizing my search query and what the first result was is simply you deflecting the issue. Read the evidence, come up with a refutation, or shut the fuck up. Ignoring the plethora of articles that are related that DID come up is beyond disingenuous.
Facepalm Dude, the first page was all articles on abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons and had nothing to do with the abiogenesis of life, except for one, which was from answers in genesis. Face it, you screwed up. But it was a great laugh for me, so thanks! Smile

Uh. Hydrocarbons.... organic chemistry..... life......

What....? I..... What? Never mind.

It would help if you are indeed on an honest to goodness search for truth. It appears you are allocating more efforts to squaring the circle of facts into your worldview. That's called confirmation bias and is best left as a personal choice and not one that is broadcast because it fosters a culture of ignorance.


If you don't want a sarcastic answer, don't ask stupid questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 03:20 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 03:10 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Er, if it's so fantastic, why doesn't the first hit have anything to do with the topic at hand? Consider

Wow did those goal posts shift at light speed. You asked for peer reviewed evidence and I gave it to you. Criticizing my search query and what the first result was is simply you deflecting the issue. Read the evidence, come up with a refutation, or shut the fuck up. Ignoring the plethora of articles that are related that DID come up is beyond disingenuous.

Wow, it's almost like alpha male doesn't want to be provided with evidence and won't read it anyway. Makes you glad not to spend too long providing links and references if he's determined to dismiss whatever you give him.

I always use google scholar when searching for references when writing a paper. Also cite seer, another search engine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
25-02-2014, 07:34 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
You said aliens.
Aliens are waaaaaayy more probable that magic or angles.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 03:22 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  "They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”"

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/

http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n....1086.html

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918...c333fe7f95

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...173205.htm

http://m.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

Perhaps your Abiogenesis question would be better suited for a thread about Abiogenesis.

It's a common Theist mistake to believe science is only valid with an origin of life theory, when no such theory is necessary for scientific inquiry to be valid.

It's a wonderful illustration of the significant difficulty Theists have with probability: They present a story of the origin of life with no proof or evidence to support it, and assert it is more valid than theories with empirical evidence behind them.

Theists don't seem to understand the burden of proof, evidence, or why presenting a false dilemma is unscientific, unfounded, and simply wrong.

If you have ever created a cell or grown from eating something, you have already committed abiogenesis.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
25-02-2014, 08:20 PM
The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 05:47 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 03:20 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Wow did those goal posts shift at light speed. You asked for peer reviewed evidence and I gave it to you. Criticizing my search query and what the first result was is simply you deflecting the issue. Read the evidence, come up with a refutation, or shut the fuck up. Ignoring the plethora of articles that are related that DID come up is beyond disingenuous.

Wow, it's almost like alpha male doesn't want to be provided with evidence and won't read it anyway. Makes you glad not to spend too long providing links and references if he's determined to dismiss whatever you give him.

I always use google scholar when searching for references when writing a paper. Also cite seer, another search engine.

This just proves my theory that theists come here to speak authoritatively on topics they have zero knowledge on, Google search and throw up the first link that matches their position: No more reading or critical thought required.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: