Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

a reply to: cooperton

Please, feel free. I look forward to the day where you’re able to pick apart anyone’s arguments with actual science and citations. Hell, at this point I’d settle for you demonstrating a viable hypothesis with anything resembling evidence for your personal interpretation of creation.

None of the above will happen. Ever. But sure, make it about me and not your willful ignorance and pandering to your I own confirmation biases.

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.

Your ignorance of the subject is overwhelming. Anyone who claims to know as much as you do about QM is either lying, on drugs or just plain ignorant. Barcs is absolutely correct. WE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE Q WORLD.

And as long as we're using quotes, here's a few for you to consider:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Richard Feynman

I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings.Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science.But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary.

Niels Bohr

I remember a lecture given by a guest physicist at Yale. He said: "When I teach the QM curriculum, I tell my students that they will know LESS about the subject when they finish the course than when they started".

As usual Coop, you know not what you're talking about.

originally posted by: Phantom423


As usual Coop, you know not what you're talking about.

As per your speech though, knowing less about QM means knowing more right? An obviously absurd statement.

We know enough about quantum physics for it to have replaced the old classical physics model.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

Please, feel free. I look forward to the day where you’re able to pick apart anyone’s arguments with actual science and citations. Hell, at this point I’d settle for you demonstrating a viable hypothesis with anything resembling evidence for your personal interpretation of creation.

None of the above will happen. Ever. But sure, make it about me and not your willful ignorance and pandering to your I own confirmation biases.

usually your diatribes are 98% insult and self-aggrandizing and 2% attempts to demonstrate knowledge about science, whereas this post is just 100% self-aggrandizing. Do you still think epigenetics are related to SNP events?

a reply to: cooperton

You're so far off base that it's not feasible to be anything but insulting. You pick and choose what you like from the literature to support your "world view" as you folks call it. Why don't you get a few real books. Then let us know how "easy" it is to understand the Q world and why you are one of the privileged few who understands it.

a reply to: cooperton

The human species does not understand quantum mechanics. Experts in the field barely know anything about it. Who is right, Max Planck or Richard Feynman?

a reply to: cooperton

No, only my replies to you read Like that because you’re either unwilling or incapable of learning so there’s no point in engaging in civil discourse with someone who relies on self perpetuating ignorance to make it through their life. You wouldn’t know real Science if it gave You a Lap dance.

For the record, cell replication leads to multiple SNP’s. Most are Neutral. Some alter gene expression. Most of what you believe to be epigemetics is just what I wrote, Variation in gene Expression as a result of SNP’s occurring during cellular replication. If that wasn’t clear, epigenetic events, in many cases but not necessarily all cases, is the result of altered gene expression due to SNP’s. What epigenetics most Definitely is not, is the primary force of evolutionary change as you seem to be insisting.

originally posted by: cooperton
lol what are you even arguing ??? that is EXACTLY what I said:

What you said was DEAD wrong.

Epigenetic alterations occur during the lifetime of an individual ... Epigenetics are alterations to the already existent genetic code

Epigentic changes DO NOT ALTER THE DNA code. They change expression of certain traits that are already present in the DNA. If you are agreeing with this, why are you using it to argue against evolution??? All of your arguments are terrible and illogical. You bring epigenetic changes up as some kind of "gotcha" for evolution when it doesn't even have anything to do with how new traits emerge or how DNA code changes over time.

Likewise you bring up double slit as a supporting argument for god when it isn't even relevant and much of QM is not well understood, you just jump to conclusions about consciousness based on what we don't know, and that's an appeal to ignorance.

Plus you claim Irreducible complexity conflicts with evolution when that concept only applies to technology.

Seriously, these arguments are like saying that nuclear fusion goes against thermodynamics or that marine biology conflicts with the big bang. None of your arguments are relevant at all.

a reply to: Barcs

No way man... we’re just a bunch of bullies arguing against anything ole Coop types out because we hate science and only Coop truly understands The minutiae Of every scientific disciple while we’re a bunch of heathen hacks who don’t have a clue despite Coop not actually having the appropriate background in one, let alone every field of science currently studied today. It’s imposing to deal with such a deft mind as Coops who operates on a PhD level in everything from Biology to Paleoanthropology to QM and everything in between. You know you’re intimidated by his conclusive grasp of all sciences at a level we could only hope to understand one day.

originally posted by: Barcs

Epigentic changes DO NOT ALTER THE DNA code.

This whole argument started because you said:

originally posted by: Barcs

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

Evolution involves a hard-wire change to the genetic code, so you saying earlier that epigenetics is part of evolution indicates that at one point you thought epigenetics did involve hard-wire changes to the genetic code. There's nothing wrong with learning something from other people... or being wrong, as long as you admit it. I admit when I'm wrong. I can go find plenty of examples throughout these forums of me doing so.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Barcs

No way man... we’re just a bunch of bullies arguing against anything ole Coop types out because we hate science and only Coop truly understands The minutiae Of every scientific disciple while we’re a bunch of heathen hacks who don’t have a clue despite Coop not actually having the appropriate background in one, let alone every field of science currently studied today. It’s imposing to deal with such a deft mind as Coops who operates on a PhD level in everything from Biology to Paleoanthropology to QM and everything in between. You know you’re intimidated by his conclusive grasp of all sciences at a level we could only hope to understand one day.

Argue the data not the person presenting it. I didn't mean to make you so upset, but it would do your temper a lot of good to admit when you're wrong: SNPs are hard-wired mutations, which is not epigenetics.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Epigentic changes DO NOT ALTER THE DNA code.

This whole argument started because you said:

originally posted by: Barcs

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

Evolution involves a hard-wire change to the genetic code, so you saying earlier that epigenetics is part of evolution indicates that at one point you thought epigenetics did involve hard-wire changes to the genetic code. There's nothing wrong with learning something from other people... or being wrong, as long as you admit it. I admit when I'm wrong. I can go find plenty of examples throughout these forums of me doing so.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Barcs

No way man... we’re just a bunch of bullies arguing against anything ole Coop types out because we hate science and only Coop truly understands The minutiae Of every scientific disciple while we’re a bunch of heathen hacks who don’t have a clue despite Coop not actually having the appropriate background in one, let alone every field of science currently studied today. It’s imposing to deal with such a deft mind as Coops who operates on a PhD level in everything from Biology to Paleoanthropology to QM and everything in between. You know you’re intimidated by his conclusive grasp of all sciences at a level we could only hope to understand one day.

Argue the data not the person presenting it. I didn't mean to make you so upset, but it would do your temper a lot of good to admit when you're wrong: SNPs are hard-wired mutations, which is not epigenetics.

Suspending skepticism for a moment, how exactly does this demonstrate intelligent design?

a reply to: peter vlar

originally posted by: cooperton
archaebacteria are supposedly a whopping 3.8 billion years old, and are theoretically the same as the first life to form from the primordial soup:

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%)
source: en.wikipedia.org...

4.54 billion years - 3.8 billion years = 0.74 billion years

Therefore it take less than a billion year for inorganic matter to evolve into complex uni-cell archaebacteria.

How long does it takes for amino acid to synthesize into protein by chance? 1 secs?

Abiogenesis is fairy tale.

Forget inorganic matter, just explain why we cant revive complete dead organic human body first.

Science and scientists suffer from political correctness. The sooner we acknowledge this, the sooner we'll make much needed progress in scientific fields.

a reply to: vasaga

The next time you take a medication, go to your doctor, or receive a treatment for a disease like cancer, remember that scientists are practicing political correctness and not science/medicine.

In fact, why bother taking a drug or going to the doctor?

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: cooperton
archaebacteria are supposedly a whopping 3.8 billion years old, and are theoretically the same as the first life to form from the primordial soup:

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%)
source: en.wikipedia.org...

4.54 billion years - 3.8 billion years = 0.74 billion years

Therefore it take less than a billion year for inorganic matter to evolve into complex uni-cell archaebacteria.

How long does it takes for amino acid to synthesize into protein by chance? 1 secs?

Abiogenesis is fairy tale.

Forget inorganic matter, just explain why we cant revive complete dead organic human body first.

Prokaryote fossils date back as far as 3.5 billion years and eukaryotes go back 1.7 billion.

Carl Woese, J Peter Gogarten, "When did eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei and other internal organelles) first evolve? What do we know about how they evolved from earlier life-forms?" Scientific American, October 21, 1999.

Please provide research data indicating that the publication is in error.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

The next time you take a medication, go to your doctor, or receive a treatment for a disease like cancer, remember that scientists are practicing political correctness and not science/medicine.

In fact, why bother taking a drug or going to the doctor?

It's quite funny you use cancer as an example, considering it's a multi billion dollar business that would die if they would find an actual cure. They're not interested in cures, only treatment.

Not that your reply was relevant in any way to my comment. It's an empty red herring reply to avoid a very true reality. Science has become a club where anyone who has a different idea is slandered, and that hampers progress.

a reply to: vasaga

Sure. Cancer is big business. We work hard not to find a cure so that the industry can profit.

You obviously have never worked in science or medicine, never worked in a lab, never worked on a research project, never published a paper. But you know it all! Thanks for the input.

Over and out.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

The next time you take a medication, go to your doctor, or receive a treatment for a disease like cancer, remember that scientists are practicing political correctness and not science/medicine.

In fact, why bother taking a drug or going to the doctor?

It's quite funny you use cancer as an example, considering it's a multi billion dollar business that would die if they would find an actual cure. They're not interested in cures, only treatment.

Not that your reply was relevant in any way to my comment. It's an empty red herring reply to avoid a very true reality. Science has become a club where anyone who has a different idea is slandered, and that hampers progress.

Having been an outlier with hypotheses that disputed the current (in the late 90’s) understanding of aspects of late Pleistocene hominids,while I may have met with some criticism, I was encouraged far more than I was disparaged. The essential rule for those situations is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence To support them and convince others of the validity of both the hypothesis and the work done to support it.

Your assertion of how things work in science and/or academia is a flawed opinion that belies a lack of formal training or educational background in the sciences in question. Everyone on ATS seems to make definitive statements of fact as though they have the credentials and the CV to support their position and that is almost never the actual case.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but as an actual Paleoanthropologist, I can assure you that you are far off the mark with your views. In the future you may want to add qualifiers to your statement like, “in my personal opinion “ or something along those lines instead of stating things as fact when you don’t actually know first hand.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Having been an outlier with hypotheses that disputed the current (in the late 90’s) understanding of aspects of late Pleistocene hominids,while I may have met with some criticism, I was encouraged far more than I was disparaged.

That's because you're still within the allowed framework. From what you have said, you are still supporting the general evolutionary model. Questioning details is always allowed. Questioning the big picture is not. Who would want to throw away decades of research, because someone didn't question the basic premises early enough?

Here's one, very relevant to this thread;

The continuing antagonism to the panspermic implications of Pasteur's dictum led the way to the emergence of the dominant biological paradigm - abiogenesis in a primordial soup. The latter idea was developed at a time when the earliest living cells were considered to be exceedingly simple structures that could subsequently evolve in a Darwinian way. These ideas should of course have been critically examined and rejected after the discovery of the exceedingly complex molecular structures involved in proteins and in DNA. But this did not happen. Modern ideas of abiogenesis in hydrothermal vents or elsewhere on the primitive Earth have developed into sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support.

Even if we concede that the dominant neo-Darwinian paradigm of natural selection can explain aspects of the evolutionary history of life once life gets started, independent abiogenesis on the cosmologically diminutive scale of oceans, lakes or hydrothermal vents remains a hypothesis with no empirical support and is moreover unnecessary and redundant.

www.sciencedirect.com...

originally posted by: peter vlar
The essential rule for those situations is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence To support them and convince others of the validity of both the hypothesis and the work done to support it.

That's how it's supposed to work. But in reality, evidence does not convince, because being dismissive is easy, especially when the peer reviewers are part of the same club. It would be like asking a Christian church to approve a paper that talks against Jesus. Not going to happen, no matter how much evidence there is. Nitpicking will happen as an excuse for dismissal.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Your assertion of how things work in science and/or academia is a flawed opinion that belies a lack of formal training or educational background in the sciences in question. Everyone on ATS seems to make definitive statements of fact as though they have the credentials and the CV to support their position and that is almost never the actual case.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but as an actual Paleoanthropologist, I can assure you that you are far off the mark with your views. In the future you may want to add qualifiers to your statement like, “in my personal opinion “ or something along those lines instead of stating things as fact when you don’t actually know first hand.

Lack of formal training? Sounds a lot like brainwashing. But hey... Fine. Let's assume you're right. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Since apparently authority is extremely important in science, rather than evidence and truth... Don't take it from me. Take it from this guy, Gerald Pollack, PhD, Professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington;

There comes a time when you come to accept that the ignorant ones are actually Padawans, laughing at the time and effort you spend doing your posts.

I say come up with a copy and paste quote linking to earliersidcussions and leave it at that.

A passive aggressive approach to trolling the trolls.

Coomba98