Civilization causes devolution

a reply to: Noinden

Nope not confusing anything.

What you are confused about is that science overlaps and informs each niche...


Lol..this is fun stuff.

a reply to: luthier

No, you really are confusing it.

To link concepts, you have to prove the link. Its why Unified theories of everything are theoretical, not an actuality.

HYPOTHESES are not THEORIES. Evolution as a theory, is just fine, with out cramming in everything. The public makes this mistake everytime. Crying "its not complete".

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

For once we agree. Though technically he (assuming gender here) is refering to proteogensis, of which abiogenesis is one of several hypotheses.

Also saying that it has nothing to do with the origins should probably be written, that hte orgins of life are not needed to be included in the theory of evolution.

Again (not at you with this) people don't get that theory means, "testable, shown to be so", and hypothesis means "needs proof".

Of course not because the theory of evolution is to weak to confront origins.
It is the one case where the Creationist can say "God did it" and the evolutionist has no rebuttal.
So, after all of your attacks on religion it all comes down to: how life began, of which evolution does not take part in.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Quadrivium

Abiogenesis and panspermia don't have anything to do with evolution?

Nope, an evolutionist will sit here, argue evolution, attack your religion and at the end of the day they have zilch for how LUCA came to be.

a reply to: Noinden

Lol you are very confused and seem to be having an arguement with some past arguments you had because I never said evolution was incomplete as what it is...dear lord. Read my words. They are literal. If you can't understand don't presume you know and invent an arguement.

Very clearly if you read before fighting I say to others evolution does not de evolve. And that people seem to confuse what biological evolition is or would be capable to predict.

This was to some of the theist remarks about evolution we see. And I am explaining it's not cosmology.

I am however explaining evolution the word does have a path from particle evolution into where we get more comfortable with organic chemistry, right up until human evolution which has several studies including cultural evolution that effect the genome.

Now the incomplete part smarty pants is the branches of genetics that will deal with evolution and genetic engineering as the new species are created and adapt etc...as well as the are of evolution dealing with synthetic environments.

Science crosses over. How else does one find quantum entanglement is part of evolution?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Noinden

Lol you are very confused and seem to be having an arguement with some past arguments you had because I never said evolution was incomplete as what it is...dear lord. Read my words. They are literal. If you can't understand don't presume you know and invent an arguement.

Very clearly if you read before fighting I say to others evolution does not de evolve. And that people seem to confuse what biological evolition is or would be capable to predict.

This was to some of the theist remarks about evolution we see. And I am explaining it's not cosmology.

I am however explaining evolution the word does have a path from particle evolution into where we get more comfortable with organic chemistry, right up until human evolution which has several studies including cultural evolution that effect the genome.

Now the incomplete part smarty pants is the branches of genetics that will deal with evolution and genetic engineering as the new species are created and adapt etc...as well as the are of evolution dealing with synthetic environments.

Science crosses over. How else does one find quantum entanglement is part of evolution?

SHHHHH!!!! Or he will start telling you all about his PhD!!

a reply to: Quadrivium

Prove its otherwise. Very seriously PROVE that it must be included.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

No, you really are confusing it.

To link concepts, you have to prove the link. Its why Unified theories of everything are theoretical, not an actuality.

HYPOTHESES are not THEORIES. Evolution as a theory, is just fine, with out cramming in everything. The public makes this mistake everytime. Crying "its not complete".

Like the standard model?

a reply to: luthier

You have not proven that path. As an Organic Chemist evolution would mean heat or gas is produced. As a Geneticsist it would refer to biological evolution.

So again, your posting the "evolution of the Cosmos" is a non sequitur in a discussion on biological evolution.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

You have not proven that path. As an Organic Chemist evolution would mean heat or gas is produced. As a Geneticsist it would refer to biological evolution.

So again, your posting the "evolution of the Cosmos" is a non sequitur in a discussion on biological evolution.

In your opinion.

But I don't make it an arguement about biological evolution..that's all you because you got roasted on the other topics.

a reply to: luthier

You can of course show that the Standard model explains everything right? You seem somewhat familiar with theoretical Physics. But not very familiar with Chemsitry, less so again with Genetics.

After all the standard model has not been mathematically proven. it does not explain gravitation, and its inconsistent with some emerging models of cosmology.

So if you are holding that up as an example of unified theories of everything in science. Which is what you are pushing, nope. Try again.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Prove its otherwise. Very seriously PROVE that it must be included.

As soon as you answer my question in the other thread friend.
Seriously.
I enjoy this and want to answer but as someone once told me:

Sorry neighbour you do not dictate what I respond to or when. Thanks for playing.

See what a cop out that is?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

You can of course show that the Standard model explains everything right? You seem somewhat familiar with theoretical Physics. But not very familiar with Chemsitry, less so again with Genetics.

After all the standard model has not been mathematically proven. it does not explain gravitation, and its inconsistent with some emerging models of cosmology.

So if you are holding that up as an example of unified theories of everything in science. Which is what you are pushing, nope. Try again.

No just having fun with your careless words..

Obviously very serious science is done to find the theory of everything. M theory...etc.

Which is opposite of your claims..

Second you have not attacked any arguements you literally just make vague statements about what I don't know yet can not argue or articulate what that is.

You have been roasted on evolution and quantum biology being a study.

You have created straw men and red herrings...

All I did was answer you responding to me

a reply to: luthier

Your own careless words are apparent here.

You've clearly not done much science have you?

Lets try again.

The theory of evolution does not need to be tied into every other theory. The only people who insist on that are creationists or IDers, to try and gain a foothold, in a theory, that has a hell of a lot of evidence supporting it.

a reply to: Quadrivium

No, you tried to order me about. I'm not beholden to you. You are not beholden to me. I certainly am not your friend neigbour.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

Your own careless words are apparent here.

You've clearly not done much science have you?

Lets try again.

The theory of evolution does not need to be tied into every other theory. The only people who insist on that are creationists or IDers, to try and gain a foothold, in a theory, that has a hell of a lot of evidence supporting it.

Great has nothing to do with anything I said.

Thankfully however actual science teams are made up of several disciplines in research. So a geneticists would not be isolated from a particle physicists and not cross over and work on a project like entanglement in body systems.

Do you know how science works?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

No, you tried to order me about. I'm not beholden to you. You are not beholden to me. I certainly am not your friend neigbour.

No, you could not answer because you were dishonest. There is a huge difference.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

Your own careless words are apparent here.

You've clearly not done much science have you?

Lets try again.

The theory of evolution does not need to be tied into every other theory. The only people who insist on that are creationists or IDers, to try and gain a foothold, in a theory, that has a hell of a lot of evidence supporting it.

So no one else has new theories now that we have equipment Darwin did not? Do you even science bro?

Seriously though science is multidiciplined sns while some scientists specialize (and others have several degrees across science) science teams are generally made up of all kinds of people who communicate with each other using the insight from their speciality.

So even in astrophysics research teams depending on what the study or experiment is will have several fields from engineering, to astrobiology, etc...