The Darwinian Mob

[Arising_uk]

mental- activity of the mind including but not necessarily limited to conscious linguistic manipulations ...

Okay but what is this conscious manipulation? A model that makes an other from perceptions that we then call self as long as theres two of them to communicate.

analogies of undefinables is futile...

To much brevity for me.

limiting the machine the ghost inhabits...

Not a dualist.

[Ginkgo]

reasonvemotion wrote:

Darwin's claim that all life arose from a primordial single organism into which "life was breathed", is poppycock.
He said 'probably' but this appears to be pretty what is claimed by the creationists, a 'God' breathing life into inanimate matter to create life? So I assume you think what they say is poppycock as well?

Quote:

There is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started.
So what? Science does not work like religion, it does not need a first cause to explain how what it is observing works.

If the theory of evolution does not rely on a supernatural creation, is it possible that life itself could have arisen by the random chance combinations to form the first living organism.

There is no satisfactory explanation of how the first living cell could form by itself, but it is assumed that it did.

So how is it possible for a living cell to arise by chance.

There is tidal wave of evidence that the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter is impossible.

You may well be correct, but I am not sure of the point you are trying to get across.

When enough evolutionary scientists start to feel the criticisms in terms of their explanations being inadequate, then according to Thomas Kuhn in his, "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" there will be a paradigm shift in science. For example, Mendelian inheritance taking over from Darwin's pangenesis. Science is not set in stone. The future may well reveal that the current evolutionary theories are inadequate.

Again, I am not sure of the point you are making in relation to your claims that the current science is not an adequate explanation. In the future science will develop a different explanation to fit the observations.


Ginkgo

[reasonvemotion]

Got the book Tom, bit pricy I must say but will get back to you with some thoughts after a peruse.

Maybe this book will offer you some logic in softening your staunch belief in Darwin.

[Arising_uk]

Maybe this book will offer you some logic in softening your staunch belief in Darwin.

I have no belief in Darwin, I know he existed.

What I do have is a belief that the Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation for the variety of forms of species we see around us.

Heads and shoulders an explanation above the belief that it was all knocked-up by some 'sky-father' around 6000 years ago.

And since the discovery of DNA and the Gene confirmed his postulate that there must be a method of inheritance I find it a reasonably supported theory. Which discovery also now sets Biology up as an Engineering discipline(apologies to all the chemists out there).

[Ginkgo]

Got the book Tom, bit pricy I must say but will get back to you with some thoughts after a peruse.

Maybe this book will offer you some logic in softening your staunch belief in Darwin.

Science doesn't work by way of," a belief in a person". It is a belief in their theory.

Why do I accept Newton's laws of motion. Is it because I have a staunch belief in Newton, or is it because I have a staunch belief in the mathematics and the theory?

I think you are missing a very important distinction.

[Ginkgo]

reasonvemotion wrote:

Darwin's claim that all life arose from a primordial single organism into which "life was breathed", is poppycock.
He said 'probably' but this appears to be pretty what is claimed by the creationists, a 'God' breathing life into inanimate matter to create life? So I assume you think what they say is poppycock as well?

Quote:

There is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started.
So what? Science does not work like religion, it does not need a first cause to explain how what it is observing works.

If the theory of evolution does not rely on a supernatural creation, is it possible that life itself could have arisen by the random chance combinations to form the first living organism.

There is no satisfactory explanation of how the first living cell could form by itself, but it is assumed that it did.

So how is it possible for a living cell to arise by chance.

There is tidal wave of evidence that the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter is impossible.

You may well be correct, but I am not sure of the point you are trying to get across.

When enough evolutionary scientists start to feel the criticisms in terms of their explanations being inadequate, then according to Thomas Kuhn in his, "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" there will be a paradigm shift in science. For example, Mendelian inheritance taking over from Darwin's pangenesis. Science is not set in stone. The future may well reveal that the current evolutionary theories are inadequate.

Again, I am not sure of the point you are making in relation to your claims that the current science is not an adequate explanation. In the future science will develop a different explanation to fit the observations.


Ginkgo

Ok then RVE, perhaps I can answer my own question and you can correct me if I am wrong.

You see the evolution debate being one of a belief in Darwin versus a belief in God.

[Impenitent]

mental- activity of the mind including but not necessarily limited to conscious linguistic manipulations ...

Okay but what is this conscious manipulation? A model that makes an other from perceptions that we then call self as long as theres two of them to communicate.

it could be a manipulating entity outside of the biologicalbox, then again, it could merely be a function of biological components... I do not know what directs the manipulation, but ideas represented via language are arranged...

analogies of undefinables is futile...

To much brevity for me.


comparing things that have yet to be defined is pointless... too much brevity?

limiting the machine the ghost inhabits...

Not a dualist.

not making the charge, merely cutting to the explaination...

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

it could be a manipulating entity outside of the biologicalbox, then again, it could merely be a function of biological components... I do not know what directs the manipulation, but ideas represented via language are arranged...

I can understand that perceptions are arranged by whatever and that ideas cannot use anything but, but I'd have thought ideas can be rearranged.

comparing things that have yet to be defined is pointless... too much brevity?

Still not quite getting it but we have been creating computational neural nets and their properties appear to shed some light on how the wetware may work.

limiting the machine the ghost inhabits...

Not a dualist.

not making the charge, merely cutting to the explaination...

-Imp

Fair dos.

Do you mean the idea of the ghost is the limiting factor on the 'machine' or vice versa?

[Impenitent]

it could be a manipulating entity outside of the biologicalbox, then again, it could merely be a function of biological components... I do not know what directs the manipulation, but ideas represented via language are arranged...

I can understand that perceptions are arranged by whatever and that ideas cannot use anything but, but I'd have thought ideas can be rearranged.


it appears we agree... that which directs the manipulation, both arranged and rearranged by whatever

comparing things that have yet to be defined is pointless... too much brevity?

Still not quite getting it but we have been creating computational neural nets and their properties appear to shed some light on how the wetware may work.


neural nets don't regulate heartbeats... we cannot fathom all that in which the mind may consciously or unconsciously be involved... appearing to represent that which is undefined?

limiting the machine the ghost inhabits...

Not a dualist.

not making the charge, merely cutting to the explaination...

-Imp

Fair dos.

Do you mean the idea of the ghost is the limiting factor on the 'machine' or vice versa?

not unless the ghost is more than binary selections... then again the myriad of selections which the biological machine allows is not matched by artificial means...

-Imp

[Ginkgo]

not unless the ghost is more than binary selections... then again the myriad of selections which the biological machine allows is not matched by artificial means...

-Imp

True, but it may well be quantum selections.


Ginkgo

[Rortabend]

Darwin's claim that all life arose from a primordial single organism into which "life was breathed", is poppycock.


There is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started.

The latter is demonstrably false:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2% ... experiment

[reasonvemotion]

The latter is demonstrably false:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2% ... experiment

"simulated the conditions....... atmosphere might have had.... "too complex for analysis." ....... the early Earth may have had ............................may have occurred......Some evidence suggests ....................might have contained...................Miller was never able to find out, but the researchers have since discontinued the testing.

If the "might have, too complex, simulated, suggests, thought" were not included along with "discontinued" there might be a modicum of 'something" to consider.

As it stands all this is simply assertion, or where evidence is cited it does not actually prove the claim.

[Arising_uk]

...
As it stands all this is simply assertion, or where evidence is cited it does not actually prove the claim.

Which bit of this;

"Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and published the following year.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]"

didn't you understand RvE?

[reasonvemotion]

There is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started.

To carry meaningful information, the amino acids have to occur in a specific sequence and the chances of that could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.for example. Just changing one specific sequence renders it meaningless. There are 20 difference amino acids involved in biological systems and unless the amino acids are in the right sequence, the code will not work to carry information in a cell. This calculation does not include other possible valid sequences that could contain information. Nor the fact there are many non protein forming amino acids in nature that make the chances of the right protein forming even less likely.


Of studies of single celled organisms, scientists have estimated that the simplest possible living organism would require a genome containing a minimum of 250 to 400 genes. Thus the improbability of life occurring in the simplest cells has high odds against it. That is, a living organism cannot arise by chance from nonliving matter.

[Arising_uk]

There is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started.

To carry meaningful information, the amino acids have to occur in a specific sequence and the chances of that could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.for example. Just changing one specific sequence renders it meaningless. There are 20 difference amino acids involved in biological systems and unless the amino acids are in the right sequence, the code will not work to carry information in a cell. This calculation does not include other possible valid sequences that could contain information. Nor the fact there are many non protein forming amino acids in nature that make the chances of the right protein forming even less likely.

And yet here we are? The problem with probabilities are that they are just that. I take it you are saying a 'God' did it 6000 years ago? I don't know but I can think that there can be other effects that could affect your figures, so what are the rates of change or mutation at the time?

You asked for a naturalistic explanation and have been given an experiment that produced the organic from the inorganic, seems a pretty good reply to me.

Of studies of single celled organisms, scientists have estimated that the simplest possible living organism would require a genome containing a minimum of 250 to 400 genes. Thus the improbability of life occurring in the simplest cells has high odds against it. That is, a living organism cannot arise by chance from nonliving matter.

no but the building blocks for it apparently can and with chance, mutation and evolution it appears it has. Unless of course you think a'skyfather' did it 6000 years ago, not saying 'it' didn't as I like the astronut or maybe even probes idea. Although I think Fred may be right and it all came from comets and asteroids.