Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: Barcs

Epigenetics is not a field, it's part of evolution. This statement basically says nothing.

This is absurd. How do you, a zealous proponents of evolutionary theory, know so little about the core tenets of how it is theorized to work? Epigenetic alterations occur during the lifetime of an individual - Darwinian evolution is based on genetic mutations, which has nothing to do with epigenetics. Epigenetics are alterations to the already existent genetic code, whereas mutations are hard-wired changes to the genes. If you are going to be demeaning to people, you should know what you are talking about.

QM is not very well understood yet.

another baseless statement. Quantum physics has been thoroughly studied for the last 100-some years, so much so that it has literally overtaken classical physics as a comprehensive explanation of how our world works. Again, I really don't think you know anything, except to try to refute everything I say. If you would stop your zealous adherence to your deranged theory, you would be able to think clearly, and make logical assertions for your self, rather than knee-jerk respond whenever anyone threatens your mutant theory. Vasaga was spot on with this comment:

originally posted by: vasaga
To put science, especially modern day science, on a pedestal as the ultimate savior is the exact same mentality that religious people have about God being the ultimate savior. It makes people uncritical and thus subject to manipulation.

a reply to: cooperton

another baseless statement. Quantum physics has been thoroughly studied for the last 100-some years, so much so that it has literally overtaken classical physics as a comprehensive explanation of how our world works. Again, I really don't think you know anything, except to try to refute everything I say. If you would stop your zealous adherence to your deranged theory, you would be able to think clearly, and make logical assertions for your self, rather than knee-jerk respond whenever anyone threatens your mutant theory.

That would be an accurate assessment of quantum mechanics if anyone had a clue how those mechanics actually operate. Every paper written so far basically amounts to "quantum activity happens and that's as far as we've gotten". Certainly it doesn't prove anything specific and that's where your error is.

As for epigenetics:

One example of an epigenetic change in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo, which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, as a single fertilized egg cell – the zygote – continues to divide, the resulting daughter cells change into all the different cell types in an organism, including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, endothelium of blood vessels, etc., by activating some genes while inhibiting the expression of others.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That would be an accurate assessment of quantum mechanics if anyone had a clue how those mechanics actually operate.

We do though. Take for example Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: (deltaX)(deltaP) = h/(4pi)



Photons, among other particles, behave according to this principle. When the displacement (X) becomes very low, the momentum (P) increases to accommodate this physical law, and the dispersion pattern of the light increases.

Barc's statement that we do not know very much about quantum physics is absolutely wrong. Quantum mechanics explains physical phenomenon far, far better than classical physics can. So much so that classical physics has been deemed a "useful fiction" compared to quantum mechanics. Observations in quantum mechanics totally ruin material reductionist theories though, so I realize why many are slow to adopt this more comprehensive view of physics - it ruins their religious fairy tale of a matter-based origin theory. Read any of the memoirs of the founding fathers of quantum physics, it is a totally revolutionary form of observable science that formulates a better understanding of how our world works.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That would be an accurate assessment of quantum mechanics if anyone had a clue how those mechanics actually operate.

We do though. Take for example Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: (deltaX)(deltaP) = h/(4pi)

Photons, among other particles, behave according to this principle. When the displacement (X) becomes very low, the momentum (P) increases to accommodate this physical law, and the dispersion pattern of the light increases.

Barc's statement that we do not know very much about quantum physics is absolutely wrong. Quantum mechanics explains physical phenomenon far, far better than classical physics can. So much so that classical physics has been deemed a "useful fiction" compared to quantum mechanics. Observations in quantum mechanics totally ruin material reductionist theories though, so I realize why many are slow to adopt this more comprehensive view of physics - it ruins their religious fairy tale of a matter-based origin theory. Read any of the memoirs of the founding fathers of quantum physics, it is a totally revolutionary form of observable science that formulates a better understanding of how our world works.

The uncertainty principle only proves my point. There are fundamental limits to our understanding of quantum mechanics that mean we can't really prove that there is a deity waiting at the bottom of a glass unless we make assumptions like old max Planck. Which is sloppy work for any self respecting physicist. How about posting some real math instead of cryptic one liners that have zero context?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
like old max Planck. Which is sloppy work for any self respecting physicist. How about posting some real math instead of cryptic one liners that have zero context?

Lol go learn some respect, knowledge will have no part with you until you do.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
like old max Planck. Which is sloppy work for any self respecting physicist. How about posting some real math instead of cryptic one liners that have zero context?

Lol go learn some respect, knowledge will have no part with you until you do.

You're a very sore loser. Try educating yourself with actual books instead of those cute picture quotes. Context is key.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You're a very sore loser.

No you are delusional. You have things explained to you and then you respond disrespectfully. You send snippets from wikipedia and then act as if you are an expert on the topic. Go look at your post history, you really contribute nothing except smug comments, condescending remarks, generic statements and tooting the horn of your own kind. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of mostly every topic we discuss, yet still continually say demeaning things about people simply because they disagree with you.

The uncertainty principle only proves my point. There are fundamental limits to our understanding of quantum mechanics

The uncertainty of the matter is not an inability to understand how it works, but an uncertainty in knowing both the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. This is a predictable physical law that acts according to (deltaX)(deltaP) = h/(4pi) . This is a very well documented observation. You consistently talk about things you do not know in a demeaning way and it is this hubris that prevents you from actually re-evaluating your beliefs based on new data. Again, quantum physics is understood well enough to render classical physics obsolete. If you were to just admit you are wrong you could actually start to learn things..

Try educating yourself with actual books instead of those cute picture quotes.

You mean the quotes form the founders of quantum mechanics? Do you think you're smarter than them too? Textbook Megalomania.

a reply to: cooperton

No you are delusional. You have things explained to you and then you respond disrespectfully. You send snippets from wikipedia and then act as if you are an expert on the topic. Go look at your post history, you really contribute nothing except smug comments, condescending remarks, generic statements and tooting the horn of your own kind. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of mostly every topic we discuss, yet still continually say demeaning things about people simply because they disagree with you. 

I'm not an expert, but I do understand the content I post when making a case.

The uncertainty of the matter is not an inability to understand how it works, but an uncertainty in knowing both the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. This is a predictable physical law that acts according to (deltaX)(deltaP) = h/(4pi) . This is a very well documented observation. You consistently talk about things you do not know in a demeaning way and it is this hubris that prevents you from actually re-evaluating your beliefs based on new data. Again, quantum physics is understood well enough to render classical physics obsolete. If you were to just admit you are wrong you could actually start to learn things..

But that observation doesn't actually tell us anything except measuring those particles is a bit tricky. What would you infer from the uncertainty principle?

You mean the quotes form the founders of quantum mechanics? Do you think you're smarter than them too? Textbook Megalomania.

I think they got lazy in their work. Humans do that sometimes. Which is why we cultivate younger and brighter experts to improve every field of study.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Epigenetics is not a field, it's part of evolution. This statement basically says nothing.

This is absurd. How do you, a zealous proponents of evolutionary theory, know so little about the core tenets of how it is theorized to work? Epigenetic alterations occur during the lifetime of an individual - Darwinian evolution is based on genetic mutations, which has nothing to do with epigenetics. Epigenetics are alterations to the already existent genetic code, whereas mutations are hard-wired changes to the genes. If you are going to be demeaning to people, you should know what you are talking about.

It’s quaint how you continue to claim others don’t know what they’re talking about or that it’s perfectly acceptable for you to be dismissive of any information contrary to your personal talking points because you feel disrespected. Any discussion you’re involved in isn’t little more than childish locker room banter and devoid of anything resembling real
Facts. How you interpret facts isn’t the same thing as discussing the actual facts of the matter. Like you say above, if you’re going to be demeaning to people, you should have a clue what you’re talking about.

That is your Achilles Heel, thinking you’ve got a clue when you don’t actually understand the basics, let alone some of the more advanced concepts you believe yourself to be an expert in despite having nothing resembling credentials or the appropriate background to actually weigh in on topics that are far above your head.

Let’s look at your glaring error in logic and knowledge above. Your insistence on separating all aspects of evolutionary theory as if you’ve created a magical hierarchy that exists nowhere outside of your imagination is, in all honesty,
Hilarious to watch you volley that little ball of make believe around with such passion.

Where you screw yourself is by not actually, as is usual in these discussions, grasping some of the most basic aspects of a science you think you’re an expert in while proving time and time again that you are anything but...

See, for 70 years now, biological evolution has been studied and catagorized under The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Insisting that “Darwinian” evolution isn’t compatible with epigenetics or any other recognized mechanism of biological evolution does nothing but demonstrate your willful ignorance and plethora of confirmation biases. You’re not interested in looking at facts. Only pushing your Pet agenda. It’s the exact opposite of a scientific approach so perhaps it’s time to step down from your soap box and slate us the self pious homilies until you’re able to demonstrate a grasp of basic concepts.

I’m not even going to try to explain to you that what you think is epigenetic mutations is actually nothing more than the way genes are expressing themselves after an SNP event. Do I need to explain to you how single nucleotide polymorphisms work as well? It would send you straight people not
A Meltdown once You realize How SNP’s lead to epigenetic changes. Perhaps we could have a sticky thread for remedial biology before we move on to biological Evolution? There are definitely some folks who could benefit from a better understanding of the basics before they try To educate me on evolutionary theory or QM when you consistently demonstrate a lack of understanding of both.

originally posted by: peter vlar
It would send you straight people not
A Meltdown once You realize How SNP’s lead to epigenetic changes.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. SNPs involve a change in the sequence of a gene, whereas epigenetics involve a change in the expression of a gene

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

I'm not an expert, but I do understand the content I post when making a case.

But you post as if you have a better comprehension of quantum physics than "old Max Planck". As if your assertions are more valid than his on the topic?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
It would send you straight people not
A Meltdown once You realize How SNP’s lead to epigenetic changes.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. SNPs involve a change in the sequence of a gene, whereas epigenetics involve a change in the expression of a gene

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

I'm not an expert, but I do understand the content I post when making a case.

But you post as if you have a better comprehension of quantum physics than "old Max Planck". As if your assertions are more valid than his on the topic?

www.the-scientist.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

epigeneticsandchromatin.biomedcentral.com...

I don't have to justify my criticism of Max Planck anymore than you have to cite specific excerpts from his works in connection with real world examples to support your creationist hypothesis. In other words, quoting quantum mechanics doesn't work like a magic buzz phrase to avoid providing actual evidence of divine forces meddling with reality. Show us some substance, please.

The links above show the relationship between SNPs and epigenetics, for your reading pleasure.

I also noticed you didn't answer my question about your interpretation of the uncertainty principle. In fact, feel free to go back a few pages and answer all my questions that you ignored.

originally posted by: TzarChasm


www.the-scientist.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

epigeneticsandchromatin.biomedcentral.com...

The links above show the relationship between SNPs and epigenetics, for your reading pleasure.

These papers are from 2010 and out-dated by more contemporary research. Significant development in experimental data has demonstrated that epigenetic alterations are inheritable (by an unknown mechanism), which explains the phenomenon addressed in these papers. SNPs are not responsible for epigenetic alterations, or at least according to the current frontiers of genetic data. Just like epigenetics do not change the hard-wiring of a gene, SNPs have no effect on epigenetic expression.

For example, here's a paper demonstrating that epigenetic inheritance is responsible for antibiotic resistance: Source

Why do you blindly try to defend Petervlar?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

The links above show the relationship between SNPs and epigenetics, for your reading pleasure.

Nah I've answered plenty of your questions. You're not actually curious you're just trying to trap me in my word. It's annoying and fruitless to be honest.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm


www.the-scientist.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

epigeneticsandchromatin.biomedcentral.com...

The links above show the relationship between SNPs and epigenetics, for your reading pleasure.

These papers are from 2010 and out-dated by more contemporary research. Significant development in experimental data has demonstrated that epigenetic alterations are inheritable (by an unknown mechanism), which explains the phenomenon addressed in these papers. SNPs are not responsible for epigenetic alterations, or at least according to the current frontiers of genetic data. Just like epigenetics do not change the hard-wiring of a gene, SNPs have no effect on epigenetic expression.

For example, here's a paper demonstrating that epigenetic inheritance is responsible for antibiotic resistance: Source

Why do you blindly try to defend Petervlar?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

The links above show the relationship between SNPs and epigenetics, for your reading pleasure.

Nah I've answered plenty of your questions. You're not actually curious you're just trying to trap me in my word. It's annoying and fruitless to be honest.

No mention of nucleotides in that paper. So what is your point exactly? What does this report confirm?

You haven't answered a damn thing in this whole thread or in any other. You have no creation theory, barely a hypothesis, and certainly no examples of testable real world phenomena to support it. I'm practically begging for you to give us something juicy to really chew on, a good solid reason to give you credit, and all you put on the table is imagination. Come on, throw us a real bone here. I'm curious about all things magical but all I see here is illusion and semantics.

originally posted by: vasaga
The premise must be true. Being true is not the same as being an empirical fact. In fact, there is no such thing as "empirical fact". Fact = /= evidence = / = truth.

That's exactly what I said. Otherwise it's on you to give me an example of something which is true and explain how you made that determination without empirical testing involved. Testing evidence is how we learn the facts and better understand what is true and what is not. Nice try at semantics, though. I missed ya, buddy.

But anyways, that's what I said, the premise must be true. That's the problem with what most people claim is "logical" evidence for god. The premise is often assumed, or the logical connections are faulty. I find that the case almost every time. Do you have an example of this logical evidence, so I better understand which apologetic argument you are referring to here?

Logic supersedes science. It is logic that gave birth to the scientific method. Not the other way around. Logic and math are on equal levels. Science uses math.

That's not what I was saying. In order to logically evaluate a claim, you check if there is empirical(testable) evidence to support it. They are directly connected. How else do you determine if a premise is true?

That is an assumption. Learning what? About the outside world? Sure. Good luck learning about ethics, aesthetics, metaphysical truths... The fact that you believe that statement be true proves your scientism.

Are there better methods for learning how things work and the history of the universe? I'm all ears. You say I'm working with assumptions here when you mention metaphysical truths. I'm not sure what you even mean by that. Everything you mentioned is subjective. What if there are no metaphysical truths and ethics is just humans trying to better get along for the sake of society? Scientism doesn't apply here. Science shouldn't dictate subjective concepts like morality and ethics. It should be used to better understand the world.

You can't claim that stabbing someone is not a fault because someone else shot someone.

Exactly. Apologists and preachers are not scientists.

Give me a single scientific theory or viewpoint that does not have a non-empirical assumption.

You said "starts with." These all started with empirical observations, from that questions were asked, and hypotheses were set up to explain it via testing, which over time substantiated them as the theories they are now:

Gravity, cell theory, evolution, germ theory

originally posted by: cooperton
Epigenetic alterations occur during the lifetime of an individual - Darwinian evolution is based on genetic mutations, which has nothing to do with epigenetics. Epigenetics are alterations to the already existent genetic code, whereas mutations are hard-wired changes to the genes. If you are going to be demeaning to people, you should know what you are talking about.

The problem is epigenetic changes don't actually change the DNA as mutations do. They only switch the expression of already existing genes on or off during an individual's lifetime. It is a process that happens alongside evolution. It's not an alternate method of gaining new traits or changing DNA, it's more like an on/off switch. It doesn't conflict with evolution in the slightest.

sorry dp!

originally posted by: Barcs
The problem is epigenetic changes don't actually change the DNA as mutations do. They only switch the expression of already existing genes on or off during an individual's lifetime.

lol what are you even arguing ??? that is EXACTLY what I said:

originally posted by: cooperton
Epigenetic alterations occur during the lifetime of an individual ... Epigenetics are alterations to the already existent genetic code

I can't do this anymore, you guys don't even know what you're arguing hahaha... Someone even starred your post. You guys are so blindly bias, I really can't take this seriously anymore.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
The problem is epigenetic changes don't actually change the DNA as mutations do. They only switch the expression of already existing genes on or off during an individual's lifetime.

lol what are you even arguing ??? that is EXACTLY what I said:

originally posted by: cooperton
Epigenetic alterations occur during the lifetime of an individual ... Epigenetics are alterations to the already existent genetic code

I can't do this anymore, you guys don't even know what you're arguing hahaha... Someone even starred your post. You guys are so blindly bias, I really can't take this seriously anymore.

Thank you for continuing to provide the laughs as you further demonstrate you don’t understand the material as well as you believe nor is your reading comprehension up to par

Let’s look at what each of you said champ.

Barcs said that epigenetics don’t actually change the DNA, the alter/switch the expression of existing genes.

You then counter with incredulousness by saying he’s a don’t and hasn’t got a clue because that’s exactly what you said.
You then support your position by quoting yourself where you prove that you said that epigenetics are alterations to the genome. They aren’t. Gene expression is a bit different than what you seek to believe it is. I know it’s tough being the smartest kid who won the spelling bee in 3rd grade and having all the mean people who studied these subjects properly telling you how wrong you are, but... you usually are. In many instances, you’re actually close Enough in your copy and paste routine that it comes down to semantics or minor errors but wrong is wrong. In science, precision is everything. That includes language. You are easily angered and completely lack discipline which leads to a breakdown in precision as you rush to defend yourself and your candyland views of science.

I’m glad that you finally don’t take this seriously anymore. At least until your next thread about nothing. Were all finally on the same page because the majority of people in this thread haven’t taken you seriously since around your 3rd post on ATS. Though I may be being generous. Good luck, though I’m certain you’ll be posting some new drivel proving the failures of the church of scientism as we pray to amino acids, peptides and molecular soup and do so in a circular room surrounded by the fossils of every hominid and hominin yet discovered and praise Yog Sothoth, Chtulu and the other elder gods for destroying the previous world so thoroughly that only the select few know the truth about the earths true history.

Praise be Chtulu and all hail Thelema

a reply to: peter vlar

I stand by what I said, Epigenetics are changes during the lifetime of an individual to their already existent genome - which I distinguished from mutations which are hard-wired changes to the genome.

Time to scrutinize your absurd claim:

"epigenetic mutations is actually nothing more than the way genes are expressing themselves after an SNP event"

This is wrong for many reasons:

1) epigenetics are not mutations, they are purposeful alterations to genome expression
2) epigenetics are not contingent upon an SNP event (not sure where you came up with that one?)
3) Therefore your concept of epigenetics is totally out of base.

lol @ the rest of your post as if you're speaking from a position of knowing. You probably didn't even know what epigenetics were until reading this page. But go on, do another angry diatribe to demonstrate how delusional your hubris is. Keep making more attempts at sounding like you know what you're talking about, I enjoy picking it apart.

a reply to: cooperton

1) epigenetics are not mutations, they are purposeful alterations to genome expression 
2) epigenetics are not contingent upon an SNP event (not sure where you came up with that one?) 
3) Therefore your concept of epigenetics is totally out of base. 

Please provide studies for each of these points.