Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by helldiver
When abiogenesis first occurred there still wasn't life. Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form.

Viruses need hosts to reproduce. Autocatalytic RNAs do not need hosts to reproduce. Completely different things..

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by helldiver
When abiogenesis first occurred there still wasn't life. Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form.

Viruses need hosts to reproduce. Autocatalytic RNAs do not need hosts to reproduce. Completely different things..

edit on 2-9-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

You only quoted part of my post. Please explain what your point is here?

Originally posted by helldiver

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by helldiver
When abiogenesis first occurred there still wasn't life. Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form.

Viruses need hosts to reproduce. Autocatalytic RNAs do not need hosts to reproduce. Completely different things..

You only quoted part of my post. Please explain what your point is here?

Point was that what you wrote:

Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form.

Was completely wrong..

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by helldiver

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by helldiver
When abiogenesis first occurred there still wasn't life. Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form.

Viruses need hosts to reproduce. Autocatalytic RNAs do not need hosts to reproduce. Completely different things..

You only quoted part of my post. Please explain what your point is here?

Point was that what you wrote:

Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form.

Was completely wrong..

You see this is the point just here. You're mixing abiogenesis with evolution. When abiogenesis first occurred there still wasn't life. Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form. And i'm not saying viruses existed before the first unicellular organism. Its just an example of the labelling of life. 

I've included my entire post that you selectively quoted above. Again, what is your point here? What have ribozymes (assuming thats what you meant by autocatalytic RNA) have to do with what i posted and also why am i completely wrong?

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
And yet scientist label phenomena with scientific jargon to do just that- fill in gaps to cover their own ignorance.

No they don't. They put forth their best guess and call it a "theory" until it is proven.

reply to post by helldiver


Viruses are a great example glad you brought it up they are a stage right between just chemicals and life. Are they life depends on which definition you use. Viruses are literally on the line viruses exist in two distinct states one dormant called verions no different then chemicals. Then they contact a host and become active and are known as a virus. So in effect its both alive and not and it shows that yes complex molecules can indeed at least act like a living cell.Sorta proves abiogenesis .

Theories are actually considered factual until proven wrong, and hypothesis are concepts with the potential of becoming theory.

reply to post by BlackSunApocalypse

Sorry but, no. Your misunderstanding of the scientific process has led you, and probably many, to the wrong conlcusions.

I do agree that there are those who sound certain but any real scientist will readily acknowledge that there is always room for a deeper understanding and even a change of what is presently thought to be certain.

I said they label phenomena with scientific jargon, you say they "put forth their best guess". So by your concept, anyone can use conjectures to "name" a phenomena? Please tell me when after attaching false jargon to a phenomena, what has to be proven?

reply to post by BlackSunApocalypse

It isn't my concept.

I can't even figure out what you are actually asking but if it is based on your misunderstanding of the scientific process then I probably wouldn't have an answer for you anyway.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
I said they label phenomena with scientific jargon, you say they "put forth their best guess". So by your concept, anyone can use conjectures to "name" a phenomena? Please tell me when after attaching false jargon to a phenomena, what has to be proven?

Science doesn't guess they evaluate evidence and form a hypothesis. Then they test it and it then becomes a theory.

Originally posted by dragonridr
Science doesn't guess they evaluate evidence and form a hypothesis.

I'm the one who used the word guess. It is an educated guess. At that point it isn't known if the results will be positive or negative.

Scientists, like I said, label phenomena they don't understand. They create theories (with the potential of being wronged). Yes you say, any real scientist would admit a need for deeper understanding and wouldn't be too certain of their theories, but think of it. Would you like to spend your entire life immersed in potentially false theories, or better said, half baked theories? What you should YEARN for is facts, and obviously, your mind burdened by so many conceptions and preconceptions can never understand a given phenomena for what it truly is. It will always label, and labels are as vast and numerous as the amount of people on earth. Everyone would have different labels, some accept the labels of others and in truth, we all would "see" it differently, but remember, what's important is the FACTS, isn't that what we want? We want CONCRETE facts and not theories. Who isn't tired of theories? I'm sure there are many people exhausted by theories, they only create more suffering. We want facts and to attain facts we need a superlative faculty. Obviously, the mind is not such a faculty because the second a scientist labels something as this or that. You go ahead and believe it.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
Yes you say, any real scientist would admit a need for deeper understanding and wouldn't be too certain of their theories, but think of it.

That isn't what I said. I said they acknowledge that a deeper understanding is possible, although maybe not obtainable at the moment, and that this attributes uncertainty to their theories.

In other words, they don't think theories are facts. That is something that you are trying to put in their mouths.

If you can't give us the CONCRETE facts then your not doing any better then they are so, what are you complaining about?

I'm not complaining about anything, I'm saying that theories (false as they may be) are quite pointless. What's important is to reach for the facts, but the question is how, I'm sure you can tell me? Please tell me how THEORIES can stop and we, as "intelligent" human beings can understand something without attaching false labels to it. Will you?

reply to post by BlackSunApocalypse

They are just part of the process. The whole thing starts with questions. Questions are not facts but that doesn't mean they are pointless.

You can't skip the question fromulation stage and just jump to the facts and you can't skip the theory and testing stages and get to the facts either. At least not within the framework established by the scientific method.

If you have a better method than put it out there but don't knock science because it isn't giving the answers as fast as you would like.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
I'm not complaining about anything, I'm saying that theories (false as they may be) are quite pointless. What's important is to reach for the facts, but the question is how, I'm sure you can tell me? Please tell me how THEORIES can stop and we, as "intelligent" human beings can understand something without attaching false labels to it. Will you?

It's not like someone dons a lab coat and a pair of nitrile gloves and instantly creates an accepted theory. You have no idea of the effort involved in getting even a weak paper accepted by a journal with a low impact factor. The roasting you see here on ATS is nothing compared to what the majority of authors receive from reviewers.

Originally posted by helldiver

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by helldiver

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by helldiver
When abiogenesis first occurred there still wasn't life. Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form.

Viruses need hosts to reproduce. Autocatalytic RNAs do not need hosts to reproduce. Completely different things..

You only quoted part of my post. Please explain what your point is here?

Point was that what you wrote:

Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form.

Was completely wrong..

You see this is the point just here. You're mixing abiogenesis with evolution.

No. I haven't written anything about either.

When abiogenesis first occurred there still wasn't life.

By definition..

Nucleic acids replicating doesn't equate to life unless you have a valid argument for calling something like a virus, for example, a life form.

Is where your argument starts to fall apart. As I wrote, autocatalytic RNAs are not comparable to viruses. They don't need a host. Viruses need a host. The fact that viruses need a host is why some people don't want to call them living. I for one think that it's a bad requirement for life. There are many obligatory parasitic bacteria. They, by definition, need a host too, yet many don't exclude them from the living. Also, viruses is a very broad concept. Some viruses are clearly just mobile genetic elements that 'escaped' some genome whereas others were once likely cellular organism that adopted to a different lifestyle (much like obligate parasitic bacteria are on their way changing right now and mitochondria and chloroplasts already did). Are autocatalytic RNAs alive? Well, they fall into the domain of natural selection, so why not?

And i'm not saying viruses existed before the first unicellular organism. Its just an example of the labelling of life. 

Ok

I've included my entire post that you selectively quoted above. Again, what is your point here? What have ribozymes (assuming thats what you meant by autocatalytic RNA) have to do with what i posted and also why am i completely wrong?

By autocatalytic RNA I ment self-replicating RNA. "Ribozymes" is something else. Ribozyme is any RNA that can perform some biochemical reaction. Note the difference. Having read my post, you should also now understand why I pointed out your mistake.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
I'm not complaining about anything, I'm saying that theories (false as they may be) are quite pointless.

Electron theory.....germ theory.....pointless? Know what powers your computer, ever been to a doctor?