Really? In which case it won’t be hard for you to list the citations in question here, will it?
5 Likes
YEP! The null hypothesis, There is no reason at all to assume A is connected to B without evidence. It is not an assumption to question claims and then reject them when they are found to be lacking or counter indicated. The null hypothesis is a ‘DESCRIPTION’ of how reason and logic works. It is formulated into the scientific method but like all of science it is ‘DESCRIPTIVE’ and not ‘PRESCRIPTIVE.’ It describes what we do and how we do it. It makes no assumptions and has no axioms, we describe the process with assumptions and axioms so that we can understand what is going on. The process itself is there, it is useful, it is repeatable, it leads us to a better understanding of the world around us, it is the best way we know of to make sense of the world, and it works. So we described it. Science builds models. That’s what it does.
It’s not an unevidenced assumption, and if your only defence of your belief in unevidenced superstition is to imply all assumptions are the same, and so we can know nothing, thus dishonestly implying parity between unevidenced superstition and well evidenced facts, then you might want to consider how laughable that rationale is. Either way no one is going to be fooled by such sophistry and semantics, not all assumptions are equally unevidenced.
It is an assumption that the sun will appear tomorrow morning, but to suggest this is no different than a completely unevidenced assumption is pure sophistry.
2 Likes
I’ve always maintained simplicity is the hall mark of design, not complexity.
You smash a mirror, the pattern that forms is extremely complex, but you didn’t design that pattern.
1 Like
Your opening claim is demonstrably nothing more than an unevidenced subjective opinion, immediately supported by two known fallacies in informal logic. . An argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, where you unjustifiably claimed your belief to be true, on the basis that it has not been proved false by an alternative. You have also used a pretty obvious false dichotomy fallacy, by stating there are no other options, since you can’t possibly know that to be the case.
If you want to peddle superstition here, you’ll need something more then completely unevidenced subjective beliefs, and demonstrably irrational arguments.
3 Likes
You posted “origins of the building blocks of life: a review”
In it is referenced:
J.L. Bada
How life began on Earth: a status report
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 226 (2004), pp. 1-15
So basically @WhoAreYou, you have an issue with scientists being intellectually honest when they say that we don’t know Exactly how this specific version of biological life began.
Before I add more to this I just want to ask, do we have any working models on clay sculpting and blowing the breath (wind) of life into nostrils.
In scientific research, there are multiple models about all, known to us, relevant stages of possible routes that life could emerge from. I hope that you can understand that mere existence of chemistry itself is basically proof for chemical selection. Some form of chemical complexity driven by competition for resources for most successful reactions is almost inevitable, when you take scale of the universe in to the picture.
Problem with you is not that you don’t have enough evidence for abiogenesis. Problem with you is that you want evidence that god couldn’t do it.
Thing is that you need to provide anything to support your position. And I mean anything that could be honestly discussed. All this time you are complaining that there is no reason to even think about natural abiogenesis, let alone accept it, but you’ve been discussing actual research all the while.
Scientists are doing their part of the work, and you apparently accept at least the fact that research exist.
I’ll repeat my question once again, can you provide any research on clay sculpting, what sort of clay/dirt/mud should be used? Should it be baked or raw? Can the breath/wind/air of life be summoned on request as per Talmud description? Can you just blow on a figurine or should something similar to “mouth to mouth” procedure be performed?
Let’s talk about your research.
2 Likes
YES:
Clay Hypothesis
A model for the origin of life based on clay was forwarded by A. Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow in 1985 and explored as a plausible illustration by several scientists. The Clay hypothesis postulates that complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform of silicate crystals in solution.
Clay acted as the first cell walls. " Indeed, vesicles developed 100 times faster in the presence of clay than they did without it, suggesting that clay could have “greatly facilitated the emergence of the first cells,” the authors write in today’s issue of the journal Science. (In the image above, the red indicates RNA that is attached to clay particles encapsulated within a vesicle.) Once forged, the vesicles grew by incorporating additional fatty acids. The scientists also caused the sacs to divide by forcing them through small pores, a process that the vesicles survived without losing their contents."
Clay Could Have Encouraged First Cells to Form - Scientific American
Harvard researchers demonstrated how the first living cells may have formed in a series of experiments that indicate that clay can be an important catalyst for life. A role for clay in formation of the first cells – Harvard Gazette
Abiogenesis - Other Models - Clay Hypothesis
Abiogenesis - Other Models - Clay Hypothesis (liquisearch.com)
Actual evidence that God breathed into clay to form man. It really is that simple. Praise the Lord!
1 Like
@WhoAreYou, how does any of that objectively evidence any deity or anything supernatural, or that either concept is even possible?
1 Like
Hi guys.
I often reference Asimov’s utterly brilliant essay “The Judo Argument” from his book (also published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction) The Planet that Wasn’t when discussing Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Below is a free Internet library where the book (and essay) can be checked out:
In any case, I thought it may be of interest.
1 Like
@WhoAreYou … care to explain what you think is purportely “wrong” with those papers?
Also, care to explain why you think your dismissal of scientific papers in any way, shape or form, supports the assertion that a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology exists?
4 Likes
Meanwhile, that scientific data keeps being added to … the latest being the finding that the amino acid tryptophan has been found in a star forming gas cloud. The scientific paper can be found here.
Once again, science delivers.
4 Likes
That is so very exciting!
1 Like
A few questions occur to me: Is this a racemic mixture of levo and dex tryptophan? Or is it mostly one isomer or the other? Does racemic tryptophan look the same on spectroscopy as the left or right isomer?
Just curious, as most amino acids on Earth are of the L variety (from what I understand), and non-living processes make amino acids in equal quantities of left and right isomers.
If–however–stellar processes make prodominantly left isomers over the right isomers, then that might explain why life on Earth is composed of mostly left-handed isomers of amino acids.
Isaac Asimov wrote a wonderful essay called “The Asymetry of Life” from the book The Left Hand of the Electron (Doubleday, 1972) where he suggests that the breakdown in conservation of parity in interactions involving the weak nuclear force may be responsible for the preponderance of left-handed amino acids over their right-handed isomers.
When I saw this article about tryptophan in a stellar cloud, I began thinking about how Asimov’s points might be relevant.
1 Like
I’m not chemistry mag, but I know what you are referring to. As far as I can understand in prebiotic relevant chemistry there is a simple mechanism for selection of “handedness”.
“Profesor Dave” on YouTube has good videos about it.
Also you can find his recent debate with James Tour, synthetic chemist with a mission to attack all evolutionary scientists.
1 Like
The idea that complexity can’t be produced by random events is falsified by one word, snowflake. I can only assume creationists think their deity intervenes to design each one individually, while allowing billions to suffer and die in misery of course.
1 Like
Snowflakes aren’t dramatic enough for me, crystals can have a lot of symmetry.
Imagine taking a new ordered deck of cards into an empty room then either:
- Just set the deck down carefully, OR
- Spray the cards more or less randomly over the room.
After you do A or B; you are told that someone else needs to use the room. Your cards are going to be moved so you write down enough information that you can restore the room to the way it was when you get the room back. This amount of information is proportional to the complexity of the room.
In situation 1 (just set down the pack of cards) you would only need to record the location of the box of cards (because the cards are new and in order; if you know where the box is, you know where every card is.
In situation 2 (sprayed cards) you will need to record the location of every single card (roughly 52 times as much information).
The punchline: random processes are capable of dramatically increasing complexity. If everything was random like the card distribution, the world would be a much more complicated place. It is because if you randomly distribute items; each item’s location is independent of every other item. For example, knowing that the Jack of Hearts is in the NW corner of the room, does not tell you anything about where the 10 of Hearts (or any other card) is. In example one the cards are stacked in order; if you know where the Jack of Hearts is, then you know where the 10 of Hearts is (it will be right next to it); requires less information to describe so it is less complex.
4 Likes
Wouldn’t it be even more than 52 since the cards may land face up or face down?
1 Like
For sure. Also there is orientation.
1 Like
It is why I laugh when someone says X is too complex to happen randomly. They have it backwards.
4 Likes