No time for Evolution?

a reply to: audubon

That is being disingenuous. The scientist makes their conclusions after they have the data, not before. Conformation bias bad.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Back of the cue! I am still waiting on my decoder ring

a reply to: Noinden

Guess I'll have to find mine in the cornflakes pack.

a reply to: TerryDon79

If you are unhappy, we can easily "fire" you.

Maybe a nice long "vacation" to Fiji will satisfy you?

Rest assured, you won't have to worry about bills from here on out!

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Fiji? All the nice beaches and sun and stuff? Sounds horrible!

I'll get back to work.

a reply to: neoholographic

You may notice, I make very few threads neighbor. I don't believe that creating a thread in any way shape or form makes one a better contributor to understanding.

What does an incomplete understanding of several processes have to do with anything. ALL science is "incomplete" as it is open to being reinvestigated.

So are you going to answer the following:
(a) How us the peer reviewed papers, NOT YouTube clips
(b) What education in the sciences do you have? Have you actually committed science at a higher level than 7th grade, or hell undergrad?

You say I (me) have a very incomplete understanding of evolution with out the origin of life? Prove it. No seriously. You seem to think (from the second to last paragraph) that the origin of life is space, you don't show this in any way shape or form. Similarly you imply that mutations are not random (who said they always were? Do you know what methylation or genotoxins are? Or radiation?). Nope show the proof, or stop posturing.

I am guessing English is not your first language, because you are missing a lot of the nuance in peoples posts.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Remember with Fiji you also have coups on a semi regular basis. Just saying.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I do coffee for breakfast, that might be my problem?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Evolution tells you how life evolved overtime.

The Origin of Life tells how and why life evolved overtime in this way.

originally posted by: Barcs
No, it doesn't. It tells how life originated, not how it evolved over time.

The current Japanese probe Akatsuki is designed to give answers to the question why did Venus,..., take such a different evolutionary pathway? The answer to this question, not only will help us find what proportion of exoplanets currently being discovered are likely to harbour life, but is also likely to help us discover how life evolved on Earth.
...
Haldane suggested that the Earth's prebiotic oceans...would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds could have formed. Bernal called this idea biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but non-living molecules...
...
It has been estimated that the Late Heavy Bombardment may also have effectively sterilized the Earth's surface to a depth of tens of metres. If life evolved deeper than this,...
...
...metabolism-like reactions could have occurred naturally in early oceans, before the first organisms evolved. The findings suggests that metabolism predates the origin of life and evolved...
...
It is therefore hypothesized that such systems may be able to evolve into autocatalytic sets of self-replicating, metabolically active entities that predate the life forms known today.

And on and on it goes on the wikipedia page for abiogenesis. But when others such as prominent and influential evolutionary philosophers as Bernal are doing it then it's ok right, cause they just mean change, or gradual change, or has changed? But when neoholographic is using the same terminology, oh boy...then we need to change "evolved" to "originated" and play all innocent when someone dares to mention the propaganda techniques of capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, twisting logic and in this case a juggling trick with words. And never forget to throw some psychological projection in there followed by pointing fingers (or pot calling the kettle black regarding psychological projection).

Or are we gonna go with wikipedia is a bad source and they've got it all wrong, gimme peer reviewed scientific articles? Even though wikipedia is listing their sources and often quoting others (or referring to the terminology others introduced and made up).

Rephrase what neoholographic said to:

Stories (or myths or evolutionary philosophies) about the origin of life often tell us how or that (cause they actually don't really get into the details of the how other than the appeal to the 'Great We Don't Know Yet but Mother Nature did it anyway', we just won't say that last part out loud, see TerryDon's earlier comments) life evolved overtime. Without the sidethoughts:

Stories about the origin of life often tell us that life evolved overtime.

And the statement is correct.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Funny thing is "nothing changed" our understanding of things changed. Why people think that Einstein and Newton (and all the Quantum folk) "change" anything is beyond me. Rather they provide models of reality. ALL on some level hold true, depending on how granular you are focused on things Heisenberg and his uncertainty principal shows this.

a reply to: whereislogic

When one uses Wikipedia, one should use the citations they provide not just Wikipedia. Its like using the Encyclopedia Britanica as a source, its a possible (if poor) place to start, but if you can find the citation they use, go with that.

a reply to: whereislogic

Oh for crying out loud. Do you even READ the crap you keep posting?

It's about life evolving from non life to life. And how a planet evolved. That's TWO of MANY types of evolution.

Still hasn't proved your point in any way though. Just shows how ignorant you really are.

We're talking about the evolution of LIFE from just AFTER the moment it was formed.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerryDon79

Remember with Fiji you also have coups on a semi regular basis. Just saying.

Can't beat a good ole coup

I do coffee for breakfast, that might be my problem?

It could be. I got told that the best place to find our licences and equipment is cereal boxes.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: audubon

That is being disingenuous. The scientist makes their conclusions after they have the data, not before. Conformation bias bad.

It's not being disingenuous; you're not thinking hard enough. The myth of scientific objectivity is just that - a myth.

Data do not land on the scientist's desk as manna from Heaven. They are gathered by a conscious choice to investigate a particular phenomenon. You can say that the data are then analysed objectively and no-one will argue with that.

But the motivation to gather the data themselves in the first place is human curiosity about a certain subject as opposed to an alternative subject. And that curiosity is influenced by all sorts of things, not least research grants and respectability.

Journalistic objectivity is similarly a phantom. Even the most neutral and scrupulous reporter is influenced by the decision to investigate one topic and not another, and what will please their editor.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Damn it means my wife has been getting mine, and she's in Business Intelligence, they don't need the cool toys, they have them already Oh well I better just keep making drugs to keep the masses down, you know like cures for Sepsis, and fibrosis.

a reply to: audubon

Care to illustrate how it is a myth?

Again I am a scientist. I KNOW how I get data. I've got the scars to prove it (glass cuts).

Again you are missing the important point. Confirmation bias. You don't go in to an investigation with a theory to prove, unless you are willing to drop the theory, when the evidence shows your theory is wrong.

Oh and don't quote "Professor A faked data" as proof. Post the statistics. From every paper published in Science each year, how many are proving your theory. Single instances prove nothing. Statistics is best served from large populations

a reply to: TerryDon79

People seem to think that the word evolution just sprung from Darwins mind. Which is odd, as it has a Latin etymology, and has been used from before Charlie was alive.

It may be used in many different senses.

The solar system evolved (yet is not alive)
Gas and or heat evolves in many of my chemical reactions, yet they are not alive. They may seem to be so when evolving in an uncontrolled manner, but they are not.

etc etc

The evolution of life (aka biological evolution) generally is what is meant when people use it. Yet some muppets love to muddy the waters>

a reply to: Noinden

Your wife must be getting them and reverse engineering them. Or something

Just keep fighting the good fight against the things that are trying to kill us and against the people who don't understand science (seems like they're one and the same sometimes).

a reply to: Noinden

I know. It's pure rediculousness to even assume that evolution (the word) is used to define one type of evolution and nothing else. Hell, even the word evolution has evolved itself lol (as you said with the Latin origin).

a reply to: TerryDon79

In a sense with one project I am fighting evolution (Drug resistance and Sepis) Honestly when people talk "big Pharma" they need to say "business" and understand that its not the Scientists holding things back, its that many ideas make no money, sorry, you can't be part of a capitalist society, AND have all the nice things for free/cheap. I just do the science. It does not make me rich, though I am not poor.