It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Same thing with you. If your only responses are insults it just demonstrates your intelligence.

So elaborate on this puff theory. I'd like you to explain it better.


Nah, I'm just demonstrating that your logic fails miserably. Even if evolution turns out wrong (I doubt this very much) it would not mean that the creator hypothesis is right.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


You say Nucleic Acid just came out of nowhere. Puff! Nucleic acid.

Please explain the "Gene" to me. You can even get all Sciencey and stuff, I'll try to follow along.



plato.stanford.edu...
There has never been a generally accepted definition of the “gene” in genetics. There exist several, different accounts of the historical development and diversification of the gene concept as well. Today, along with the completion of the human genome sequence and the beginning of what has been called the era of postgenomics, genetics is again experiencing a time of conceptual change, voices even being raised to abandon the concept of the gene altogether.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Please explain the "Gene" to me. You can even get all Sciencey and stuff, I'll try to follow along.


Genes are sequences of nucleic acid. Usually when we speak of genes, we speak of sequences of nucleic acid that encode proteins. However for example in eukaryotes there are lots of genes that don't encode proteins, but RNA structures. Depending on promoters and enhancers and stuff some sequences of nucleic acid can encode not one, but many different end products. Again in eukaryotes the end product can depend on which introns are spliced and which are left intact (which depends on stuff going on at the promoter among other things). It's quite fascinating stuff, thou not exactly the stuff of my field..

[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Genes






Genome Res. 2007 Jun ;17 (6):669-81 17567988 (P,S,G,E,B,D)

What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition.

Mark B Gerstein, Can Bruce, Joel S Rozowsky, Deyou Zheng, Jiang Du, Jan O Korbel, Olof Emanuelsson, Zhengdong D Zhang, Sherman Weissman, Michael Snyder
Program in Computational Biology & Bioinformatics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA;

While sequencing of the human genome surprised us with how many protein-coding genes there are, it did not fundamentally change our perspective on what a gene is. In contrast, the complex patterns of dispersed regulation and pervasive transcription uncovered by the ENCODE project, together with non-genic conservation and the abundance of noncoding RNA genes, have challenged the notion of the gene. To illustrate this, we review the evolution of operational definitions of a gene over the past century-from the abstract elements of heredity of Mendel and Morgan to the present-day ORFs enumerated in the sequence databanks. We then summarize the current ENCODE findings and provide a computational metaphor for the complexity. Finally, we propose a tentative update to the definition of a gene: A gene is a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products. Our definition sidesteps the complexities of regulation and transcription by removing the former altogether from the definition and arguing that final, functional gene products (rather than intermediate transcripts) should be used to group together entities associated with a single gene. It also manifests how integral the concept of biological function is in defining genes.


[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Our definition sidesteps the complexities of regulation and transcription by removing the former altogether from the definition and arguing that final, functional gene products (rather than intermediate transcripts) should be used to group together entities associated with a single gene. It also manifests how integral the concept of biological function is in defining genes.


Your source admits that this definition sidesteps the complexities of regulation, and transcription.

I'm looking for a bit more convincing than that. Even without the sidestepping it isn't very convincing.

I like the pictures of the different "Genes", that was a nice touch.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Your source admits that this definition sidesteps the complexities of regulation, and transcription.

I'm looking for a bit more convincing than that. Even without the sidestepping it isn't very convincing.


So?

It's a working definition. It's not been defined to convince you.


I like the pictures of the different "Genes", that was a nice touch.


Glad you liked it, just covering all bases, what with your problem grasping the complexity of language.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
So?

It's a working definition. It's not been defined to convince you.


That's true. It wouldn't convince anyone who asked, why, either.


Originally posted by melatonin
Glad you liked it, just covering all bases, what with your problem grasping the complexity of language.


I grasp language perfectly fine. I can even grasp when it is being misused.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why can't we find any Radio signals yet? Intelligent Life should be out there if we aren't the be all end all. Again, are we the only ones to have progressed this far? Almost sounds the same as we are the be all end all.


Out of all the millions of animals on Earth, we are the only ones capable of such communication.
There could be a million planets out there with animals that have not evolved as far as us. Besides that, there are probably very good odds that there are life forms out there which are far more intelligent than us, but may be billions of light years away. If they did send radio signals, how many billions of years would it take to reach us? No matter how intelligent a being is, we have no idea if the technology could exist to break the speed of light - which would be required to get across the great distances that exist in our universe.

We may never know. There could be countless planets just like ours with beings that make us look like ants.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
We may never know. There could be countless planets just like ours with beings that make us look like ants.


I agree. The speed of light is a good point as well. We have no proof we can exceed this speed yet, especially with travel.

As for radio signals reaching us, I guess that depends on how long ago these "Theoretical Beings" developed radio technology. We can never know.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
That's true. It wouldn't convince anyone who asked, why, either.


Anyone?

As I said, it's a working definition. And so some scientist could readily use that definition to study the concept of genes. In another instance, a scientist might use a slightly different working defintion, again, they would state what defintion and use it to study that concept.

They are concepts which are utilised to allow study. Thus, there is not one agreed upon/unified definition.

As your faux shock demonstrated, wyrd, eh?

Many non-scientists find the complexities of science rather mystifying. As we learn more about nature, our understanding changes to fit existing knowledge, just as it should.

You can show more faux shock if you want. Perhaps faux indignation would be more appropriate at this point...



[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Many non-scientists find the complexities of science rather mystifying. As we learn more about nature, our understanding changes to fit existing knowledge, just as it should.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]


"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

But really it's the same for even the theory of evolution. People think they understand it, but many of them really do not. It looks easier than it's. Just look how many people here are crying where's the friggin' half man half fish fossil or go on about lower and higher forms of life or some other nonsense like that


[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
They are concepts which are utilised to allow study. Thus, there is not one agreed upon/unified definition.


I know of lots of concepts with agreed upon definitions. In fact MOST concepts have agreed upon definitions.


Originally posted by melatonin
Many non-scientists find the complexities of science rather mystifying. As we learn more about nature, our understanding changes to fit existing knowledge, just as it should.


Just curious, are you claiming you're a scientist? What is your field of study?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I know of lots of concepts with agreed upon definitions. In fact MOST concepts have agreed upon definitions.


Oh well, not all.

As long as we know which defintion is being used, we have no real problem.

I understand that you would, you have enough problems with words having two meanings, never mind concepts have different definitions.


Just curious, are you claiming you're a scientist? What is your field of study?


Even if I was, I wouldn't tell you, lol.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Oh well, not all.

As long as we know which defintion is being used, we have no real problem.

This is the exact same issue I have with Evolution. You make it out to seem like I'm being outlandish. When you have the same problem with the word "Gene".

Why wouldn't you tell me your field of study if you were a scientist? Do you think I'd try to refute it? I live off of science. I feed my kids off of science. I have no problem with science. I'm not a scientist by any means, but I am quite familiar with science and use it in my day to day.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
But really it's the same for even the theory of evolution. People think they understand it, but many of them really do not. It looks easier than it's. Just look how many people here are crying where's the friggin' half man half fish fossil or go on about lower and higher forms of life or some other nonsense like that


You mean like the crocoduck?



Aye, on the surface it's such a simple and elegant idea, yet so easily misunderstood and misrepresented.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This is the exact same issue I have with Evolution. You make it out to seem like I'm being outlandish. When you have the same problem with the word "Gene".


I don't have a real problem with the word, and I have none with evolution, neither fact nor theory.


Why wouldn't you tell me your field of study if you were a scientist? Do you think I'd try to refute it? I live off of science. I feed my kids off of science. I have no problem with science. I'm not a scientist by any means, but I am quite familiar with science and use it in my day to day.


Because it's my personal information. And I can do what I like with it, lol.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Chance and necessity. Not just chance.



Originally posted by JPhish
Naturalist:

it simply happened by chance within the laws of nature


I said that in my first post . . . you are the one using semantics. Instead of saying “within the laws of nature” you’re saying necessity. It’s the same thing.


Originally posted by melatonin
Chance comes in the form of randomness inherent to mutations et al, the necessity is in the form of selection et al. Which are the laws/deterministic feature of nature.



Originally posted by JPhish
Naturalist:

it simply happened by chance within the laws of nature


Again, I said this in my first post.


It's a fairly simple concept that is understood by most involved in these discussions. Perhaps read a Dembski book, as I'm actually using well-established terminology in this area:


Ok, well you should define your terms. I never said that they weren’t well established or that I didn’t understand you; I said that I didn’t want to jump to conclusions as you have several times in relation to my posts. Now I realize you’re saying that exact same thing I said in my first post except in different wording. If it makes you feel better we can use necessity as our word of choice.


So we have chance, necessity, and design possibilities.

Which is what I said in my first post, except I said “within the laws of nature” instead of necessity. I happen to not like the word necessity when referencing a naturalist universe, because necessity denotes need, and in a non teleological universe, nothing needs to happen.


Design is your teleology.

What?


Chance is the randomness inherent to much of nature. Necessity is the laws, regularities and deterministic features of nature.

Which is what I’ve been saying.



According to metaphysical naturalism - chance and necessity.

I agree; I just don’t like the word necessity.


According to intelligent design creationism, creationism etc - chance, necessity, and design.
chance in some creation universes is not a factor.


So when you say just chance, you are leaving out necessity by design
I’ve been saying “within the laws of nature” which is synonymous with the definition you’re using for necessity.


So to correctly represent the argument from metaphysical naturalism, it is chance and necessity. And, of course, no teleology. It is undirected by the miraculous pantheon. It does serve a purpose, though, to label evolution and wider naturalism as being based on just chance. The misrepresentation sounds rather silly and ridiculous doesn't it? Who could readily accept the rather deterministic and ordered nature we see around us as just happening by chance alone.
I never said that it happened by just chance alone. I said that it happened by chance within the laws of nature. Which is what you are saying in a different wording.

[edit on 3/8/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
You just attempted to define something as supernatural (beyond nature) by taking stuff we don't understand (beyond current knowledge) as supernatural, when in fact it could well just be natural.

For example, we don't really understand abiogenesis at this point. If it is natural, by your defintion, it would therefore be supernatural as we don't understand it. If it was supernatural it would therefore be supernatural. And so at this point abiogenesis is supernatural in all cases, lol. God of the gaps by semantics? Perhaps that's a foundational problem with such thinking - supernatural by default, when the answer is actually 'don't know'.

It's a pretty useless definition. Use it by all means, but I think I'll go with the clearer 'technical' defintion.

Semantics is pretty tedious. A potentially copious lulz harvest, but not helpful.

i was saying it more to address things that people instantly assume are supernatural because we don't know them but are in fact not.


Well if the natural and the supernatural do not exist completely outside of themselves then it is more than likely a ven diagram of sorts. You have to acknowledge the intersection. In my opinion, things in that gray area are supernatural in relation to our understanding of nature. If you want to say that the gray area is up for grabs by naturalism or supernaturalism that's fine. But when presented with a question as to where the gray area falls, I gave my opinion when presented with an A or B answer. Never did I try to express it as a fact.



[edit on 3/8/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by melatonin
Chance and necessity. Not just chance.



Originally posted by JPhish
Naturalist:

it simply happened by chance within the laws of nature


I said that in my first post . . . you are the one using semantics. Instead of saying “within the laws of nature” you’re saying necessity. It’s the same thing.


I know what you said to start with. And I had no issue with that. I replied by essentially saying when people rely on 'it happens by chance', leaving out the necessity, it gives a false impression. Then you responded with:


Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, what gets me is the reliance on stating the naturalist category 'happens by chance'.
there’s no other way it happened unless there was intent.


Followed by several yes's about it just being chance for a number of well-determined natural phenomena.

So now you're agreeing, 'no other way it happened'. It's either chance or teleology. As I take intent to suggest purpose and teleology.

And finally...


They don’t have to happen, but they will under the right circumstances given enough time.


Which essentially removes necessity. Some things do appear to have to happen under particular conditions. In the natural order of things it is a necessity that I die, it's natural, unless there is some surprising intervention - perhaps science, I'd depend on that more than miracles. Similarly, if I take purified water down to -10'C at 1atm, it will form ice. It does have to happen, it is a determined feature of the molecules. Some molecules of water will be bouncing across states, but I essentially know I will get ice. I don't need to play dice.

I guess we just have several posts of crossed wires. Fun and games.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Well if the natural and the supernatural do not exist completely outside of themselves then it is more than likely a ven diagram of sorts. You have to acknowledge the intersection. In my opinion, things in that gray area are supernatural in relation to our understanding of nature. If you want to say that the gray area is up for grabs by naturalism or supernaturalism that's fine. But when presented with a question as to where the gray area falls, I gave my opinion when presented with an A or B answer. Never did I try to express it as a fact.


I can agree that the unknown is 'up for grabs', but I don't hold out much hope for supernaturalism, lol. Has a very poor track record.

The definition you applied wouldn't be have been very helpful, though.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join