A challenge for evolution/abiogenesis believers

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: vasaga

Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural “law” propensities and are purely physicodynamic.

To play devil's advocate, would self-organization be explained by natural selection? If self-ordering events happen a lot, certainly natural selection would bring forth self-organization?

are we talking about unions?

wouldn't something have to have a plan? know where it wants to go?

lasers, we organize light. are they in the natural world?

i guess magnets could be self organizing, the results of their presence is.

i don't believe LIFE is self-organizing or the universe.
the laws of physics are not self organizing. they are there. why?

they set everything in motion, black holes to butterflys.

solve the theory of everything, lol.

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: GetHyped

Are you saying that an abstract does not represent the paper?

As explained to you many times . . . the abstract is just that an abstract. It does not speak to the validity of the claim, just as getting accepted in a journal doesn't automatically speak to validity. That is found in recreating and confirming the results . . . to which your paper has none.

Hard test something that has no experimentation or data, and only rests on assertion.

Fine.

I find it funny how this thread is attacked but the other one is left unattended. You people must've run out of ideas to that thread. No way to link it to ID maybe? Yeah... This forum consists of three types of threads.
- The thread that gives the majority here orgasms, which is whatever any popular evolutionist says.
- The thread that is bashed because it does not support whatever any popular evolutionist says.
- The thread that is ignored because it can't give orgasms due to its content, and it can't be bashed due to its solidity.

a reply to: vasaga

I'm not sure what "thread" you are referring to . . . if it's the Scientism thread . . . plenty of responses and I even left one for you after your last post.

If it is the BioSemiotics thread . . . it's because we've been down this road before. Plenty of past semiotics threads were shown to have no evidence to support the papers posted.

I'm assuming that you didn't read the paper (or essay, really), just the abstract. Therefore, you can't tell us (or just point out to me) where the data is contained to back the claims made? I'll help you out . . . it's a review . . . not a presentation of data through experimentation.

Look . . . it's an interesting idea and one that is worth looking into. However, to this point, there just isn't any credible evidence for this that stands up to scrutiny.

That's all . . . no conspiracy . . . no religious defense of mainstream science . . . no hatred for or picking on you.

At the end of the day, science relies on evidence . . . not assertions or possibility.

well everyones going to have to accept that pathogens are what drives mutations which cause species diversity.

How is it that humans can have slight variations of genetic material region to region well likewise certain diseases are *local* until transported to uneffected regions.

How is it that measels and small pox wiped out a majority a Native americans and South Americans, If every human is to be a *clone* of each other as many people in this thread suggest.

Oh well this one decended from a neanderthal, So it must be a cocasian or an asian. Oh but wait there's more, Natives are decendents of Asians

But wait we have studies and patents dealing with genetic engineering which specifically studies viruses and genetic effects.

All the GMO, Superhuman studies all derive from germline transfer and other methods of genetic manipulation.
If you want to call all the birds (modern day dinosaurs) *evolutionary* outcomes, when what is being done. Is altering of proteins during embryo development. Then so be it, but it has nothing to do with natural selection.

One species does not just die off because it was hunted * Not all the time, it happens sometimes but that is not the cause of (evolution) so to speak*

Its host pathogens carrying ebryonic changing material, that alters a species.
We don't use natural selection other than to choose those that survive a pandamic and adopt the new material.
The new material can result in new lineages of bloodtypes and more.

more than half of our dna is composed of viral genetic material, even our digestion system came from such orginization from symbiosis. Your trying to say that we as humans, turned from monkies into us. Simply by things *changing* randomly over time?

A pandamic could change a whole species in a few months or a year, a very short ammount of time depending on the severity of the changes and the infection.

You want proof of such things happening in the past? Birds are a pretty good clue.

Origin of birds
Dinosaurs

If you havin't taken the time to read the wiki about it maybe you should.

You me and everyone else included posting on this forum, is more Virus than Human.
Literally, There are many scientific papers that show this is true.
Evolution does not exist, Only Pathogenic Mutation....

a reply to: solomons path

Yes I was referring to the BioSemiotics one. The consideration of possibilities is where we start looking for evidence. If we discard possibilities we will never progress in science. Not saying you are incorrect btw.

As for BioSemiotics, if there really is no evidence, why is it seen as a growing field nowadays?

a reply to: vasaga

It's growing because people (researchers) are seeing the similarities between the two. The current issue is that the scientists promoting the idea are not Evolutionary Biologists, so their depth (or lack of) of knowledge hampers their scholarship. It's computer science people that say . . . DNA seems like computer code, or biochemists that say . . . there is so much information in here that I'm incredulous to nature being the sole catalyst, or robotics engineers that use evolutionary algorithms to run program that say . . . these things didn't happen on their own, so life must be the same . . . Then these people infer there is a correlation. There may be . . . but, no one has presented credible and repeatable data to back that claim.

It's growing because technology has allowed us to delve into the inner world of DNA and sequence or isolate certain aspects of the genome. Tech has allowed us to "mess" with the expression of these genes, in the lab, and scientists from disparate fields can see the propensity for humans to "design" current organisms and think . . . "What if" and applying that to life's origin. However, when going this far the "design" propents start their arguments with the assumption of design, not based on evidence but that "what if", thus starting with a flawed/false premise.

Heck . . . Spiritualism was a field of real study in the Victorian era . . . yet, no matter how many legitimate scientists wrote papers or experimented in labs . . . no evidence came forth and now it's nothing more than superstition. Just because the idea is out there and credible researchers are looking into it, doesn't mean that it will proven to be valid.

Who knows . . . when we're both dead some kid may come along and find some "hidden" mechanism to transcription or translation. However, generally, if the info is there we can find out by formulating a testable hypothesis even when technology is holding us back from confirmation. In this case, there haven't even been any credible, testable hypotheses presented.

a reply to: vasaga

I've read so many times in this forum, that in science you only need a single proof of something that contradicts the current theory and that the theory needs to be adapted or discarded. But now that it's something you don't like, you want to make up excuses to discard it.

First, the paper doesn't say "something (we) don't like". The paper actually says nothing at all, or if it does say something, the something it does say is don't confuse the terms 'self-ordering' and 'self-organizing', which is essentially to say nothing at all anyway.

Second, because the paper doesn't say anything, we need to examine how and why it made it into a scientific journal. That is basically what scientists do, make an observation of a phenomenon (a content-less paper got published and indexed), perform experiments to determine the bounds of the phenomenon (check the reputation of the author and journal and how the index is established), form an hypothesis based on the experimental data that explains the observation (the author is a pseudo-scientist who writes propaganda for Intelligent Design Creationists, the Journal is a Journal of pseudo-science, and the index does not judge the content of the papers it indexes), and test the hypothesis by making predictions and seeing if those predictions are accurate (the author is associated with specific known pseudo-science organizations, the author is not qualified in the discipline he is attempting to discuss, etc, etc, etc).

Finally, the key phrase in your comment is "a single proof of something that contradicts the current theory". The paper does not provide a 'proof' of anything; it is not contradictory of the current theory; 'Evolution' is a theory, 'Abiogenesis' is not yet (and may never be! - who knows?) a theory.

By these arguments, your complaint is demonstrated to be as content free as the paper.

a reply to: rnaa

Ok.