Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: whereislogic

Ok your first why would you use sparks to create nucleotides. That doesnt make amny sense so no it hasnt been proven it be stupid, nucleotides are made of sugar to get them to interact there is two ways either heat or chemically for example nitrogen-containing heterocycles can spontaneously react with the sugar ribose-5-phosphate in water to form nucleotides. Arguing nucleotides cant be made is well stupid.

I guess we can discuss what DNA is its made of Nucleotides that are called deoxyribonucleotides. The three components of a deoxyribonucleotide are a five-carbon sugar called deoxyribose, a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base, a nitrogen-containing ring structure . Interestingly all this can be found at thermal vents which means this could possibly be the start of life the ocean floor.

Now RNA is actually harder surprising since many think this was first. though they have found that in a lab clay can help nucleotides chain but i believe last i checked they only got to chains of about 30 or so. The more likely idea is life came from space. As we have been getting samples from asteroids we discovered a large amount of left handed amino acids. So life on earth may be alien.

But i will concede just because this can happen we dont know if it did. But truth be told you can never prove it unless they invent a time machine

a reply to: whereislogic

Arguing about how life started is really kind of pointless no one was there to see it. What we can see is evolution we can study that but evolution doesnt and was never meant to explain the origin of life.

a reply to: Phantom423

Your correct when dealing with probability you can never have a zero chance. Your probability could be almost impossible but not impossible. So life was bound to happen somewhere when you have billions of stars in a galaxy and billions of galaxies it may only have happened once but eventually it would happen. Look at earth we were kind of late to the game if you think about it i think 13.8 billion years while our star has only been around 4 billion i believe. In fact simple cells had the run of the planet for around 3 billion years before more complex life occurred. The steps to get to us was very slow plants didnt form until about 500 and 600 million years ago.The first mamals about 245 million years ago. It really is lucky were even here.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Something tells me he can be easily confused i would not worry about it. if he wanted there are scientific papers that talk about this so the information can be found. See but im honest about it there is no way to know how life started we just know it did. It has nothing to do with evolution but people like to try to confuse the two. It makes me laugh when people think disputing science somehow proves there was a creator. It doesnt for the same reason I cant say ambiogeninsis occurred we cant verify how it happened. That why i dont like arguing about something tht cant be proved its pointless. We can argue about evolution however we know that occurs.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: whereislogic

As per usual, your long tirade is wrong again.

Dragonridr said:

Well given enough time anything is possible.

Which I diagreed with, as quoted by Phantom423. Then she points out:

The mathematics:
...
This is because 0 is impossible (sure that something will not happen).
...

So by pointing this out, is Phantom423 acknowledging the existence of things that are impossible, i.e. things that will never happen no matter how much time you 'give it' as contradictory to the statement "given enough time anything is possible"? In other words, that that statement is indeed wrong even though she's saying I'm wrong in my disagreement with it? (as implied by quoting my disagreement right after saying my "long tirade" is wrong; what a surprise, the old tactics never grow old here do they? "long" is in the eye of the beholder, and doesn't imply a "tirade" in either case. Cheap shots as usual to reward the common courtesy of elaboration on initial commentary edited in later, which I consider a valuable tool and I don't mind in the slightest if it lengthens my commentary a bit to open up the door for these kind of cheap shots, gives me something more to talk about and elaborate on. People's minds here are made up already anyway.)

Similar to what researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, acknowledged regarding at least 1 thing he deems to be impossible.

a reply to: whereislogic

Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

Arguing nucleotides cant be made is well stupid.

My argument is that they were made/created/engineered. Your favored evolutionary storyline referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" on the wikipedia page for "abiogenesis" (keep trying to separate the 2 subjects, I'll just keep repeating this phrase, deal?), argues that they emerged by chance (and then those favoring this storyline misleadingly use verbs such as "make", "create", "design" and even "invent" is attributed to 'Mother Nature' or mindless natural processes).

Don't swap positions now. You end up fighting straw men which look more like your own position.

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process?


Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? 1 of 2 (playlist)

It's also pretty clear that you don't care to learn or acknowledge the complicated detailed steps involved in getting nucleotides, attempting to give the false impression that this is an easy evolutionary step for nature to accomplish. The chemical synthesis and engineering techniques used in laboratories to produce something that is only akin to the nucleotides used in living organisms (often starting with starting material extracted from living organisms), don't happen spontaneously in a natural environment at just the right time and for the right duration to get the desired result. James Tour discusses this issue in more detail in that longer presentation I shared earlier, which you won't say anything about anyway when you're going through your routine of supposedly 'explaining' how easy it is for nucleotides to emerge by chance on the early earth, a prebiotic earth.

a reply to: whereislogic

Again it has nothing to do with evolution. We dont know how life was created all we have is some possibilities. But we can never know whats right unless we learn how to travel back in time. What i can say is once life is created it will evolve proof of that is its everywhere we look on the planet. Its even below the surface even areas we thought void of life surprise it was there. Only makes sense once you have life its only purpose is to survive. Part of that process is evolution life evolves to survive.

As for life being created maybe or it could have been a natural process we dont know. I will say its more likely to be a natural process because even if something created life you have to have something create the creator. And then you would need someone to create them etc etc, just starts a never ending cycle. But who knows maybe life was only created once and those aliens went around spreading it throughout the galaxy. See why arguing how it started is kind of pointless.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

Again it has nothing to do with evolution. We dont know how life was created all we have is some possibilities. But we can never know whats right unless we learn how to travel back in time. What i can say is once life is created it will evolve proof of that is its everywhere we look on the planet. Its even below the surface even areas we thought void of life surprise it was there. Only makes sense once you have life its only purpose is to survive. Part of that process is evolution life evolves to survive.

As for life being created maybe or it could have been a natural process we dont know. I will say its more likely to be a natural process because even if something created life you have to have something create the creator. And then you would need someone to create them etc etc, just starts a never ending cycle. But who knows maybe life was only created once and those aliens went around spreading it throughout the galaxy. See why arguing how it started is kind of pointless.

WHY, WHY, WHY, and WHY AGAIN

Why should life exist at all ??? Why should it reproduce??? Why should it want to self preserve itself/??

Sure, everyone wants to say it just does - I don't know what that means.

In science, even in religion, anything and everything must have an explanation - nothing
is doing anything without rhyme or reason.

Back to my original hypothesis - If its happening, there is a reason its happening - Its not just happening without that reason.

If Evoulutiion is happening, why is it happening??? - If the Life was created, why was it created ???

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Then why do you not respond to my question about dragonridr's statement? The question, that if answered, would clarify your position on that statement.

Cause you're too busy with your red herrings and saying I'm wrong without specifying what you actually are responding to and what I am wrong about. If I'm wrong in my disagreement with that statement, then just say so. No need to obscure what you think of that statement. Here it is again, dragonridr said:

"Well given enough time anything is possible."

My commentary is responding to that phrase, but none of the responses I'm getting to my commentary actually addresses that statement and/or my response to it (nor my questions to any of you about it to clarify your position and where you disagree with me for that matter), other than saying I'm wrong or accusations and attempts to discredit concerning that I supposedly don't understand logic or the mathematics of probabilities, the usual routine to distract and make this about me and everything I'm supposedly doing wrong in my commentary, like them being too long, or tirades, or insinuating that my commentary is more quantity than quality, followed by psychological projection (or better said the Isaiah 5:20,21 thingy) that I'm the one insinuating 'things like this to somehow justify my confusion'.

Ad hominems, straw men, red herrings, that pretty much sums up all the fans of evolutionary philosophies including the evolutionary philosophy and storyline referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" on the wikipedia page for "abiogenesis" are willing to offer on this forum. It is a trick, and of course you'll deny that it is and then turn it around Isaiah 5:20,21 style:

Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!

No surprise there.

Here was my question that you avoided answering clearly in your response(s) to me:

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Just like Phantom, you say I'm wrong, but you don't specify what it is I'm supposedly wrong about. Nor do you refute anything I said or show anything I said to be wrong. With your philosophical argumentation, do you mean to suggest the inverse of my statement that you quoted there at the start? That things that are (logically) impossible, can happen*, i.e. are actually possible (to happen, to occur)? Cause that's what's automatically implied (or a logical consequence if you think it through) in dragonridr's statement "Well given enough time anything is possible." Even the impossible apparently, since that's included in the concept of "anything", ...

You also haven't responded or acknowledged my reminder in my initial response to you that if you put "all the ingredients needed for a strand of DNA" into a box and shake it you will not get strands of DNA or nucleotides linking up, as implied by you by describing it as: "you eventually will end up with every possible physical combination of DNA. That might be a long time and lot's of do-overs (separating everything again), though."

The "separating everything again" in combination with the mention of "DNA" indicated you are referring to strands, some form of linkage going on. Nope, nucleotides or nucleotide bases (complete with all the trimmings, including the sugar bases that form the backbone of DNA) in a box, shaken not sturred, do not link up nor form strands of DNA, not in any combination. And all this is supposed to be related to the storyline that requires a natural environment (usually involving an oceanic environment at some point, which accelerates depolymerization of a strand/polymer of nucleotides just like explained earlier regarding amino acids in the article, i.e. even if the evolutionary magic you described would happen, the strand of DNA, or polymer of nucleotides would break up/depolymerize again, even faster near a hydrothermal vent, which is included in some of the most popular storylines for "the chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis", quoting Haldane&Oparin and Huxley respectively).

"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times.
- Infinite monkey theorem from Wikipedia

AlienView's analysis of Infinit monkeys:
If you give enough monkeys enough typewriters enough time - 100% of the typwriters will be broken before one full page
of legible and logical print is made !!!

And before we go any futher please remember Einstein's theory on Humans intelligence:

Albert Einstein: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."


Again MEANING is a prerequisite for all states of existence including Evolution and/or Creationism

So even if some want to believe that there is some randomness in the existent state
- the things that come out of the randomness are not random - there must be a matrix there for them to become manifest.

a reply to: whereislogic

You seem stuck on things that can never be proven. As with all things given enough time you will get all probabilities as long as the choice is there. So if say amino acids form you will eventually get all combinations from them. But something else can effect probability. Lets look at poker on a poker table my odds of getting a royal flush 649739 to 1. In fact people can go there whole life and not get this hand. Playing onlt one table at a time this could take decades. But we can increase our odds of seeing one by playing more tables at the same time. If we could get 649739 games going at the same time odds are good we will see one of them win with a royal flush.

So now to my point you and others want to argue statiscally the impossibilites of amino acids forming etc. Problem is we dont know the number of tables being played at the time. The simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. Now the odds of this occuring naturally with some quick math would be 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 yes thats 40 zeros absolutely huge number. But now we add more tables lets say a billion or two billion little experiments occuring in our early oceans. After all it was a huge place now our odds improved drastically making it very likely to occur.

But now we are back to our main problem we dont know this is how it happened we can only say it was possible. As i stated early i think its unprovable but who knows some smart scientist may one day think of a way. Or maybe someday we will find a planet in the early stages of life who knows. But in the mean time to say life was created or its a natural process means nothing when we cant prove either one.

a reply to: AlienView


Well in evolution there is not random anything its guided by natural selection. Life by its very nature will do what it needs to to survive. All life only truly has 2 purposes survive and multiply.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: whereislogic


The mathematics:

The probability of an event will not be less than 0.

This is because 0 is impossible (sure that something will not happen).

The probability of an event will not be more than 1.

This is because 1 is certain that something will happen.

If the probability of 'an event' occurring, or 'a thing' coming into being cannot be less than zero : how does that preclude zero ?

If the probability of 'an event' occurring, or 'a thing' coming into being cannot be more than one : does that include one ?

Are both zero and one : possible ?
Or are they both impossible ?
Or is there a 'supposed' implication that although one end of the scale is considered impossible, the other end is possible ?

How does that work ?

What do we call this model ?
What is the meaning of this model ?

Are we considering a sea of potentialities ?
Are we contemplating a realm of possibilities ?
A vast and limitless universe of probabilities ?

How can a person not into math get their head around this ?

a reply to: Nothin

I guess the easiest thing when dealing with probabilities is to think of a vegas casino. They run odds on everything bet 1 dollar and depending on the game will tell you your winnings. However you cant bet zero because thats not betting and you cant win all the time or the casino closes.

a reply to: dragonridr

What are the probabilities of a person winning at the casino : if they never go there ?
If they go : but don't bet nor play any games ?

What are the probabilities of a person winning at the casino : after the casino closes-down ?

If you meant that the probabilities are only meaningful when one actually bets or plays : are we then talking about a closed system, with walls and limitations, rules and conditions ?

How does this possibly closed-system casino : relate to the OP, and what was being discussed as 'anything is possible' ?

Is 'anything possible' at that casino ?

a reply to: Nothin


There are most definately rules its called physics.

a reply to: Nothin

It's a good question and the answer is not straight forward.

“The true logic of this world is in the calculus of probabilities.”
   —James Clerk Maxwell

If you scramble an egg, what's the likelihood that the egg would reconstruct itself to the original shape? We would say zero. But in fact, if you wait long enough there's an infinitely small probability that the egg could reform itself. When we say that things are "impossible", we really mean that the likelihood of that event happening is so small that we simply disregard it. But it could happen.

The [0,1] interval is a complete metric space. Mathematicians use intervals in analytical techniques. Intervals can be anything - [-1,1]. It's a distinct measure of something. So for instance, the interval [0,1] can be any number within that range including 0 and 1. And that range is infinite. It's something quite abstract to most people, but to mathematicians and physicists, it has a lot of meaning.

a reply to: dragonridr

Are there not zeros and ones in a physical universe ?

How does that tie-in to : 'anything possible' ?

How do the supposed 'laws of physics' allow for life to be created from nothing, but don't allow for a hummingbird to give birth to a fully-grown wooly-mammoth ?

You wrote earlier that

... So life was bound to happen somewhere when you have billions of stars in a galaxy and billions of galaxies it may only have happened once but eventually it would happen. ...

So then is a hummingbird giving birth to a fully-grown wooly-mammoth also 'bound to happen' ?

a reply to: Nothin

How do the supposed 'laws of physics' allow for life to be created from nothing, but don't allow for a hummingbird to give birth to a fully-grown wooly-mammoth ?

The laws of physics say no such thing. Physics says nothing about how life began. The hummingbird analogy doesn't work biologically. This is a no brainer and you shouldn't need an explanation as to why it's not possible (extremely low probability such that it can be disregarded).