Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: Nothin


I come back to the same answers by Max Planck, the famous physcist who gave us Quantum Mechanics around the era when Einstein gave us relativity.

I believe Planck's assertions will stand up for biological explanations as well.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck, The New Science


Max Planck did not believe in a god in a religious sense but also said this:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck


Research shows that there are at least a few Atheists and more scientists than would actually admit it,
who also beleve in Intelligent design, but not necessarily a creator or designer.
From my point of view all sceince, all Evolution IS a form of intelligent design
- Othewise you could not perceive anything.

The main theorem: There must be an intelligent mind perceiving a process backed by some type of ordered intelligence.
But aren't you really sayng that evey time you use science to explain anything ???


And finally in the Quantum Universe which is always relative to an observer and observation:


“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”
― Max Planck

originally posted by: cooperton
...
It would be about as likely as a monkey being able to create a working Terminator Robot.

I love the way James Tour puts it below with the car and all the different parts, which somehow have to come together on earth:

Here's the full presentation:

a reply to: whereislogic

Well hes right if it happened like that it would be impossible. Unfortunately that is not the theory of ambiogenisis. Its not about putting together a car or life. Its about small steps being made over time that leads to life. So when you say stupid things like putting together a car isnt what science believes may have occurred. I hate when people alllow religion to dictate their supposed scientific research.

!st rule of science dont start with what you believe to be the answer and work backwards because you will always get the results you wanted. Bottom line is we dont know what started life. Could have been a purple people eater for all we know. We have ideas on how life might have been created and its just as valid as saying god did it. When you make stuff up like building a car is the same as building life is stupid. Well i think the fine tuning was from my flying purple people eater. He got bored one day and created life. His analogy needs to have two questions asked one does cars reproduce? And Do cars have any selection pressures that causes car parts to asemble one car over another? If the answer to these are no then its an invalid comparison.

There is only one answer to how life was created. We can say life was created in a universe that is capable of sustaining life. We know this is true because we are here to ask the question. Im not willing to say some god created something just because we dont know how it works. This is why the christians even believed lightening was caused by gods. Because they didnt understand the science we now do. Weird how people want to diminish god to only the areas we cant explain. This god of the gaps is powerless when your only basis of fact is we dont know how it was done. Even with evolution their is nothing that says there cannot be a god. Science doesnt require disproving there is a god yet religion seems to feel the need to disprove science.

In closing we dont know the odds of something occuring unless we knew all the factors involved which we dont. So when you see people telling you the odds of this occuring or that they are clueless. And they are flat out lying to you what they should say is WE DONT KNOW!!!

a reply to: AlienView

Max Planck works for me !

His approach, converges nicely with the conclusions, or suggestions, of some of the old religious texts, philosophies, and spiritual teachings.

My memory ain't so great, but seems to me that you lean towards this 'consciousness' or 'intelligence' , being a form of alien life, more or less ?

If we can't get behind consciousness :

Does that mean we still can't get at the why

originally posted by: dragonridr
I explain something to you and you go no it's cant. Then I further explain why something can occur and of course, you say no it can't without offering any proof to the contrary.

Show me a study where Nucleotide or amino acid monomers can spontaneously polymerize in water. I'll save you time, it doesn't happen. Amino acid and nucleotide polymers degrade in water... for this reason alone your random-chance abiogenesis fantasy could not have happened.

originally posted by: dragonridr
I hate when people alllow religion to dictate their supposed scientific research.

You believe in evolution and abiogenesis even though you have never observed either happening. You have some astounding faith.

When you make stuff up like building a car is the same as building life is stupid.

Why is it stupid? The mitochondrion is essentially a hydrogen fuel cell. Any un-biased person can easily admit that hydrogen fuel cells do not simply come to be by random chance.

a reply to: cooperton

Show me a study where Nucleotide or amino acid monomers can spontaneously polymerize in water.

 

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Materials

Adenine, adenosine, adenosine 2′-monophosphate (2′-AMP), adenosine 3′-monophosphate (3′-AMP), adenosine 5′-monophosphate (5′-AMP), adenosine 2′,3′-cyclic monophosphate (2′,3′-cAMP), adenosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (3′,5′-cAMP), adenosine 5′-diphosphate (ADP), adenosine 5′-triphosphate (ATP), guanosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (3′,5′-cGMP), cytosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (3′,5′-cCMP), uridine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (3′,5′-cUMP) were from Sigma-Aldrich and were analytical grade.

Oligonucleotides

The oligonucleotides 5′A243′, 5′C243′, 5′A12C123′, 5′A12U123′, 5′U243′, and 5′G243′ were purchased from Dharmacon and were provided unphosphorylated, at both the 5′ and 3′ extremities.

 Methods

 Polymerization Protocols and Analysis

The appropriate nucleotide (2′-AMP, 3′-AMP, 5′-AMP, 2′,3′-cAMP, 3′,5′-cAMP, 3′,5′-cGMP, 3′,5′-cUMP, and 3′,5′-cCMP)were diluted in water to the desired final concentration. Concentrations between 1 μm and 0.1 m were analyzed. Temperatures between 25 and 90 °C and pH values 3.2, 3.7, 5.0, 5.4, 6.1, 8.0, 8.2, and 8.4, obtained by Tris-HCl buffering of bidistilled deionized MilliQ water, were tested. Other variables are discussed where appropriate. After terminal labeling (see below) the samples were analyzed by gel electrophoresis.

 Acrylamide Gel Electrophoresis

Standard methodologies were used, with the following specifications: 1) 12% polyacrylamide was used in analyses encompassing the whole product of the polymerization reaction, from the 32P-labeled monomer to the highest molecular weight fragments (>100 units), or 2) longer runs on 16% polyacrylamide gels were used for the analysis of low molecular weight polymers. With sequences allowing good resolution, the average chain length (Navg) of the oligomers was determined by the equation Navg = ΣiniNi/Σini, where ni is the number of chain (in %) and Ni is the length of RNA chains in nucleotides.

When the monomers are ionized, such as is the case with amino acids in an aqueous environment like cytoplasm, two hydrogens from the positively-charged end of one monomer are combined with an oxygen from the negatively-charged end of another monomer, again forming water, which is released as a side-product, and again joining the two monomers with a covalent bond.

One more for the road...............

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dragonridr
I explain something to you and you go no it's cant. Then I further explain why something can occur and of course, you say no it can't without offering any proof to the contrary.

Show me a study where Nucleotide or amino acid monomers can spontaneously polymerize in water. I'll save you time, it doesn't happen. Amino acid and nucleotide polymers degrade in water... for this reason alone your random-chance abiogenesis fantasy could not have happened.

originally posted by: dragonridr
I hate when people alllow religion to dictate their supposed scientific research.

You believe in evolution and abiogenesis even though you have never observed either happening. You have some astounding faith.

When you make stuff up like building a car is the same as building life is stupid.

Why is it stupid? The mitochondrion is essentially a hydrogen fuel cell. Any un-biased person can easily admit that hydrogen fuel cells do not simply come to be by random chance.

I dont believe in ambiogenisis as i stated several times there is no way to know if it is correct at least not yet. As for evolution there is huge amounts of evidence only a fool would say it doesnt occur. And now your doing it again a hydrogen fuel cell has nothing to do with the conversation. This is like comparing DNA to building a car they dont compare and frankly its a dishonest debate practice you use often. Be like me saying well if god created stuff he would have left his signature like we do when we paint. Since he didnt leave the signature so we can see it means he didnt do it. Your arguments are incredibly stupid.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

...
!st rule of science dont start with what you believe to be the answer and work backwards because you will always get the results you wanted. Bottom line is we dont know what started life. ...

I know what started life on earth, so do millions of other people. Most of us have arrived at this conclusion by means of drawing conclusions from experiments and observations by induction. Using the same methodology to discover and acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts/certainties/truths that Isaac Newton used to discover the law of gravity and described as such:

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

There is only one answer to how life was created. ... WE DONT KNOW!!!

You probably shouldn't start with what you believe to be the answer and work backwards after just arguing that one shouldn't do that. Neither is devout adherence to some form of an Agnostic Code very helpful here:

And then attributing it to others by using "we" inappropiately*, also not helpful. *: as if it's a fact/certainty/truth/reality that "we don't know". You don't get to speak for me or those who do know.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic
...
!st rule of science dont start with what you believe to be the answer and work backwards because you will always get the results you wanted. Bottom line is we dont know what started life.
...
There is only one answer to how life was created. ... WE DONT KNOW!!!

originally posted by: whereislogic

You probably shouldn't start with what you believe to be the answer and work backwards after just arguing that one shouldn't do that. ...

Hypocrite (Insight on the Scriptures)

A person who pretends to be what he is not; a person whose actions are out of harmony with his words.

...
A hypocritical course cannot be concealed indefinitely. (Lu 12:1-3) ...

[whereislogic: going back a little]
The Greek word rendered “hypocrite” (hy·po·kri·tesʹ) means “one who answers,” as well as meaning a stage actor. Greek and Roman actors employed large masks with mechanical devices for amplifying the voice. Hence, the Greek word hy·po·kri·tesʹ came to be used in a metaphoric sense to apply to one playing false, or one putting on a pretense.

Science is not on your side on this one, it does not support your views/beliefs/opinions or claims or expressions of those (referring particularly to the ones I've responded to so far, but there are more incorrect views/beliefs/opinions you've expressed and claims you've made that I haven't responded to yet; mostly cause I've seen plenty of clues that you don't care about the truth concerning these matters, nor are you very willing to acknowledge these truths/certainties/facts/realities. Plus I prefer focussing on a few to test the waters if someone is willing to be honest and truthful about the subjects I've addressed, for which I have my answer).

As I mentioned earlier in response to your claim and belief that nucleotides "would naturally create chains it's what they do." (on a prebiotic earth with no cell membranes or biomolecular machinery to catalyze the specific and right kind* of polymerization reaction around, as implied by the way you described that in the context of what you said and were responding to. Well, unless perhaps if someone like me points out the necessity of these, then they magically appear in the storyline with another speculative nonsensical explanation for their emergence that flies in the face of everything I know about chemistry, physics and entropy):

Again no, that's not what they naturally do, i.e. what happens in a natural environment. I already explained what really happens in a natural environment, degradation or entropy, or in the words of Chemist Richard Dickerson as quoted before: “depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”

*: the right kind to form a "chain" of nucleotides as per your claim, not something else sticking/polymerizing to the nucleotides that would screw up the project of developing a chain of only nucleotides, as might happen in an actual natural environment with other stuff around, not your imaginary environment where you conveniently don't consider other types of polymerization reactions that would take place in an actual natural environment, especially without a cell membrane that is capable of keeping things that would cause reactions that would interfere with the development of a chain of nucleotides, out of the cell. Just remember, when I'm talking about a natural environment, I'm talking about a realistic natural environment that fits into the overarching storyline referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" on the wikipedia page for "abiogenesis" and the many different variations of this 'nature did it' evolutionary storyline. The context of the quotation from Richard Dickerson shows what kind of environment he was talking about. What he said there regarding amino acids also counts for nucleotides in that environment.

I think James Tour uses the term "decompose" to speak about this subject, this reality/fact/truth/certainty. If someone is unwilling to acknowledge the simple facts regarding these subjects, or be honest in "what is least", then they won't acknowledge the more complicated facts, or be honest in the "much" bigger matters of concern. I learned that from something Jesus said at Luke 16:10:

The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.

Amen

This word in both English and Greek is a transliteration from the Hebrew ʼa·menʹ. The meaning is “so be it,” or “surely.” The Hebrew root word from which it is drawn (ʼa·manʹ) means “be faithful; be trustworthy.”
...
Jesus made singular use of the expression in his preaching and teaching, using it very often to preface a statement of fact, a promise, or a prophecy, thereby emphasizing the absolute truthfulness and reliability of what he said. (Mt 5:18; 6:2, 5, 16; 24:34) In these cases the Greek word (a·menʹ) is translated as “truly” (KJ, “verily”) or, when doubled, as throughout the book of John, “most truly.” (Joh 1:51)

So, the person truthful in what is least is truthful also in much, and the person dishonest in what is least is dishonest also in much. That's included in the implications of what Jesus was pointing out there at Luke 16:10.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

Nucleotides were easy enough to make on the early earth,

originally posted by: whereislogic

Nope. Not easy at all. ...

Note the context of what the man in the video below explains as to why he describes it as "it is difficult to obtain such building blocks" (speaking of nucleotides), based on his own experience in chemical synthesis. The context of that phrase starts at 8:14, or if you want to start concerning the subject of nucleotides, 7:57. The things he discusses are facts that, for the sake of honesty, require acknowledgement rather than misrepresentation by means of the word "easy". Limiting yourself to only natural causation in a realistic natural environment on a prebiotic earth (or any other planet for that matter, or in space, or in a meteorite; but I'm sticking to your storyline), doesn't make this 'chemical engineering project'* any easier. (*: as implicated by your usage of the verb "make", attributing godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces) Don't miss what comes after 15:20 (but he elaborates a bit more on the "water-problem" earlier regarding amino acids and proteins, so what he says there really should be considred in light of what he mentions earlier):

Some details regarding the synthesis of nucleotides (and why it's "difficult"), can be found after 33:27. The expression "fatal flaw" is another way of hinting at the fact that what is discussed (a requirement to get the endresult) is impossible to repeat (or occur) in a realistic natural prebiotic environment limiting oneself to natural causation or mindless processes, i.e. it doesn't happen that way in nature, no way José:

And then at 37:35, the issue concerning what he refers to as "the water-problem" concerning hydrolysis and the decomposing/depolymerization of strands of nucleotides that I've been talking about the most in my responses, also to the one who was talking about putting the ingredients of DNA into a box, shaken not sturred, and then poof, you get every "possible physical combination of DNA" as if by magic, defying all the laws of nature and chemistry.

a reply to: AlienView

Gee guy. And on a conspiracy site. Dont you know. Human beings were created by the annunaki some few tens of thousand of years ago from basic primates that were roaming around. And yes, for mining and processing gold mostly and terraforming projects.

You know the whole "those who from heaven to earth came thing"

Or so one mans translation goes. Though, Or more like those who Anu decreed go here and do this job, because mining the asteroid belt and jupiters rings was not really going anywere, then they rebelled and got lazy so set the lesser gods to do it, and then started bitching.

So thats how humans were created. There is no evolution as in the textbooks, and there is no God as in the older textbooks called bibles.

Humans are here simply because some space aliens were feeling really really lazy. We do live on EA-RTH after all. Its an old language that, even before the Sumerians.

Whats to say that all that you know and see is bull#? What if the smartest among you all was really a fellow by the name of Charles Fort who once after al his reading and meanderings once concluded that humans and every single living thing on this planet.

Is something else's property?

What if both evolution and creationism and God are so full of holes it just may be Swiss cheese?

What if this is the wisest and most accurate thing that anybody has ever uttered?

“The Earth is a farm. We are someone else's property.” ― Charles Fort

Ah just trying to spice up this thread. There all so boring now a days it seems.

a reply to: wheresthebody

Well if we are the way the universe gets to know itself as that quote from Carl Sagain says. Would make a sort of sense.

As the universe does seem to have a very self deprecating sense of humor. When it has any humor that is. Happens every few hundred of thousand billions of years. Were a funny comes into being. Maybe were like the but of a joke on the cosmic scale of things.

We are but star dust dreaming of being something else.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Oh ya. Well maybe, survival of the fittest may have been a thing back then, when we had to actually run and hunt for our meals. Now a days though, have you looked around? Dont think its the best and brightest that are breeding. And that survival of the fittest. Especially in our consumer society? And the whole government handouts and control to keep people on there dole.

Is more like survival of the the fattest. Keeping our great consumer society going, in such an environment and under such a system. Well, the best and brightest are not needed or necessary. If there was any truth to survival of the fittest? Well I think our whole society would look and be completely different.

Maybe ol Georgy boy and that ideocracy movie was right. Survival of the fattest and most idotic. If going by that and what you said ensures that "the genes most fitted to their environment are the ones most likely to be passed on to the next generation"

Well then, survival of the fittest means a whole different thing in our consumer society. After all, like you said, the genes most suited to their environment eh?

a reply to: whereislogic

This one seems to have even more details regarding the subject of nucleotides, RNA and DNA. The first 5 minutes is a bit basic though:

Haven't seen it in its entirety yet. But some key points after 9:40 (most notably 11:32 regarding the "water-problem" and what I earlier mentioned regarding the wrong type of reactions that would interfere with whatever step is being described in the storyline of chemical evolution) concerning the topic of decomposition and degradation. Also don't miss the point and fact mentioned at 17:32 (comparing the situation with polymerization of amino acids and synthesizing nucleotides before whatever you've got decomposes again).

More keypoints concerning the formation of nucleosides (and eventually nucleotides, that's the idea here) towards the end, after 29:30, most notably 32:07.

Here's part 2, no doubt just as interesting and honest, unlike certain other people reporting on the research in this field creating the impression this is all "easy" to accomplish by their Trinity of gods: 'Mother Nature', the "god of Good Luck" (mentioned at Isaiah 65:11, i.e. 'by chance'), and Father Time.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

Nucleotides were easy enough to make on the early earth, They would naturally create chains it's what they do. ...

"The inevitable conclusion of this survey of nucleotide synthesis is that there is at present no convincing, prebiotic total synthesis of any of the nucleotides." - Leslie E. Orgel (Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World)

Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World (pdf, full article)

The same can be said of the survey in the 2-part video of my previous comment, which includes a survey of the next step, forming a chain. Quoted at 29:40 in part 2. Mind you, Leslie Orgel is a believer (in the myth and evolutionary philosophy of chemical evolution a.k.a. abiogenesis). As most quotations in those 2 videos are from the devout believers of this myth concerning how life came to be on earth, i.e. philosophical naturalists.

Pff, "easy" he/she says (considering the way chemists, biochemists and synthetic chemists talk about this problematic step in the synthesis of life, or RNA, and the admittals quoted in those 2 videos).

And regarding the behaviour of 'starting with what you believe to be the answer and working backward', take note of what's mentioned after 1:43 (I actually recommend skipping there cause otherwise I might have to point out a caveat regarding something said earlier in the video regarding "science" and "satisfying answers", which is incorrect):

On to amino acids and proteins:

And for those who are under the impression that the car analogy used by James Tour earlier is "stupid" or somehow irrelevant as implied and spelled out by dragonridr earlier, here are the reasons why it's not irrelevant nor stupid to bring up in this discussion and the way things were described by dragonridr and others concerning how life supposedly could have emerged and such things as what nucleotides supposedly do as in the expression quoted at the start of this comment "They would naturally create chains it's what they do." Which they don't, but whatever, we've been through that. The car analogy along with a response to what dragonridr claimed and argued about it (which felt a bit like he was arguing a straw man there, so I didn't want to bother with it again), starting at 2:15:

Concerning 14:00, these guys throwing around useless numbers that don't impress the 'die hard' naturalist cause they'll just wave it off with one brush of the hand and a possibly distracting deliberately misleading and confusing red herring about some specific card combination showing up or the lottery being won by someone, always forget about the essential folding machine necessary for the production of functional proteins, as described towards the end below as: "We do know that accurate folding is essential in order for the protein to accomplish its intended function", which includes that folding machine as one of the requirements for the production of actual functional proteins; something to think about rather than animations of so-called "polypeptides" of amino acids that are useless:

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

As the universe does seem to have a very self deprecating sense of humor.

HAH, this sounds like its right out of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy!

I would rather see the comedy over the tragedy. cheers friend

a reply to: whereislogic

Wow this one is easy and you think you have a got you moment. Meteorites contain a large variety of nucleobases, an essential building block of DNA. The components of DNA have now been confirmed to exist in extraterrestrial meteorites. So we know the Early earth was express shipped nucleotides.

originally posted by: dragonridr
And now your doing it again a hydrogen fuel cell has nothing to do with the conversation. This is like comparing DNA to building a car they dont compare

A hydrogen fuel cell and a mitochondrion have the same reaction equation to create energy. It uses a split membrane of H2 and O2 to create water and energy. Our mitochondria are like hydrogen fuel cells. Neither of them can come to be by random chance. They are intricately precise machines.

originally posted by: Phantom423
One more for the road...............

Send me the link to the article. But judging from the caption it is referring to the formation of nucleotides, not the polymerization of nucleotide.

a reply to: cooperton

Get it from one of your crackpot cult friends. I'm sure someone must belong to ACS or AAAS through one of their universities where they have a tenure track position.