Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

The study of the formation of life before evolution is called abiogenesis. This is where the basic building blocks for life form like amino acids that from protein and the nucleic acids for DNA and RNA. Since DNA and RNA are polymers, like plastics, once you get the basic units, then you polymerize these to make long chains. RNA and DNA have four basic units and once the four basic units of each appear, building the long chains is not hard. The trick is adding the four units in specific combinations, so the RNA and DNA can define consistent templates needed for life.



The nucleic acids needed for DNA and RNA, seem to be dependent on hydrogen cyanide and ammonia or formamide and water, both of which are common to the universe. Formamide is pictured below. It looks like the peptide linkage of protein.

Thank you. Is there verifiable evidence of abiogenesis as you explained it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your point? Chemistry happens.
Yes we will admit water mediates many reactions.

Do you know when and how water was formed?

 

[YoursTrue]

Examples?

So an individual who has suffered a stroke that left the peach centers damaged no longer has a mind?

It seems self-evident to me that someone who has an injury also has their mind affected by extension or default, however it is said. Although the poster said that injury damages the non-brain body, whatever that means. Can't figure what a "non-brain" body with damages might mean.

 

[Pogo]

Do you know when and how water was formed?

Some time after the first stars went far enough to generate heavier elements, which day of a week is unknown, but that it happened is not in question as stars are doing it every day. Likewise water happens whenever there is enough energy around and Hydrogen and Oxygen are present.
It is a basic reaction that we see every day. It is not a mystery to anyone with an education.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some time after the first stars went far enough to generate heavier elements, which day of a week is unknown, but that it happened is not in question as stars are doing it every day. Likewise water happens whenever there is enough energy around and Hydrogen and Oxygen are present.
It is a basic reaction that we see every day. It is not a mystery to anyone with an education.

There are projections and conjectures, but frankly, my dear, as it was said at the end of a rather famous movie ("Gone With the Wind"), it doesn't make sense to think that's "how" it happened. Or how hydrogen and oxygen were there -- maybe castoffs from stars or other elements? anyway, just guessing, but it's all OK. It's all guesswork and maybe you think stars can be formed by men also? I'm not talking about Hollywood stars.

 

[Argentbear]

Thank you. Is there verifiable evidence of abiogenesis as you explained it?

well there is you

 

[Pogo]

There are projections and conjectures, but frankly, my dear, as it was said at the end of a rather famous movie ("Gone With the Wind"), it doesn't make sense to think that's "how" it happened. Or how hydrogen and oxygen were there -- maybe castoffs from stars or other elements? anyway, just guessing, but it's all OK. It's all guesswork and maybe you think stars can be formed by men also? I'm not talking about Hollywood stars.

Frankly nobody gives a damn about your ignorant blathering, in fact a slap in the face might have been more appropriate to knock some sense into you, but the chance was missed.

You do know what emotion was being expressed?

 

[YoursTrue]

well there is you

haha, I kind of like that. Even though I don't think it's true -- it's funny.

 

[YoursTrue]

Frankly nobody gives a damn about your ignorant blathering, in fact a slap in the face might have been more appropriate to knock some sense into you, but the chance was missed.

You do know what emotion was being expressed?

Well, without using those words -- that's kind of how I feel about blathering about how it all physically started. (have a good night.)

 

[Pogo]

Well, without using those words -- that's kind of how I feel about blathering about how it all physically started. (have a good night.)

Yes we have noticed, nothing anyone says to you is understood as more than blather on your part.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The time scale in living systems is not universally "Sudden".

At the molecular level, chemical reactions happen in fractions of a second or even much less time. I suppose that might be sudden, but only for this category and relative to changes that are much more lengthy.

Mitosis (cell division) can take place from minutes to hours depending on the species.

Embryonic development occurs over days to many months depending on the species.

Metamorphosis in insects happens over days, weeks, or months depending on the species.

Digestion can take three or four days from start to finish.

Human gestation takes 9 months. Elephant gestation runs 18 to 24 months. That is a lot of change.

Animals and plants have daily cycles that occur over a 24 hour period. And annual cycles with changes that organisms experience occurring over months. Some animals overwinter in a quiescent state that can last months.

Lifespans among living things vary and are by no means sudden in their extent. They can be very brief and only a few years in some insects to decades and centuries in some vertebrates to 1000's of years in some plants like cedars and aspens.

Population changes and evolution can take generations, 10's, 100's, 1000's, 10's of thousands and millions of years. Demonstrated in numerous experiments and observations.

Thus, the ridiculous belief of believers that all change in all living things at all levels is sudden is refuted once again.

The nonsensical idea that observations recorded in scientific reports and popular articles are evidence that change is sudden, because it didn't take them long to be recorded or someone to read the report, is a ridiculous misinterpretation by those believers that are ignorant of science and research.

You might as well say something incredibly silly and meaningless like cheap Chinese agar is the basis for rejecting the findings of the Lenski experiment.

The believers I see seem to think they are omniscient and can make facts out of thin air while rejecting valid science for personal reasons that have nothing to do with facts, evidence or any sort of basic knowledge of the subject matter. They seem to enjoy playing semantic games or claim unevidenced conspiracy theories support their rejection of science.

I've posted much of this material before and it gets ignored just like my posting the assumptions of Darwin's theory and those of the modern synthesis are ignored.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes we have noticed, nothing anyone says to you is understood as more than blather on your part.

It depends. I am sorry, I should not have said it that way.

 

[YoursTrue]

The time scale in living systems is not universally "Sudden".

At the molecular level, chemical reactions happen in fractions of a second or even much less time. I suppose that might be sudden, but only for this category and relative to changes that are much more lengthy.

Mitosis (cell division) can take place from minutes to hours depending on the species.

Embryonic development occurs over days to many months depending on the species.

Metamorphosis in insects happens over days, weeks, or months depending on the species.

Digestion can take three or four days from start to finish.

Human gestation takes 9 months. Elephant gestation runs 18 to 24 months. That is a lot of change.

Animals and plants have daily cycles that occur over a 24 hour period. And annual cycles with changes that organisms experience occurring over months. Some animals overwinter in a quiescent state that can last months.

Lifespans among living things vary and are by no means sudden in their extent. They can be very brief and only a few years in some insects to decades and centuries in some vertebrates to 1000's of years in some plants like cedars and aspens.

Population changes and evolution can take generations, 10's, 100's, 1000's, 10's of thousands and millions of years. Demonstrated in numerous experiments and observations.

Thus, the ridiculous belief of believers that all change in all living things at all levels is sudden is refuted once again.

I realize you may not want to communicate with me, but you made a statement above that I wonder about the embracing qualities. You said, "Thus, the ridiculous belief of believers that all change in all living things at all levels is sudden is refuted once again." Believers?

 

[Dimi95]

Nature does not necessarily equate to the theory of evolution.

No , Life as we see it is probable only if Evolution did happend.

Every other way is just 'pure magic'.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I realize you may not want to communicate with me, but you made a statement above that I wonder about the embracing qualities. You said, "Thus, the ridiculous belief of believers that all change in all living things at all levels is sudden is refuted once again." Believers?

You are more or less correct, but I'll answer this.

Believers in this case is predominantly those that believe their own empty assertions are facts. But it could include those that base rejection of science on believed views that are undemonstrable or based on what they are told they should believe by other people.

 

[YoursTrue]

No , Life as we see it is probable only if Evolution did happend.

Every other way is just 'pure magic'.

I'm not sure what you mean. But there are things that science simply cannot explain. That includes the idea of abiogenesis leading to what is considered by many, evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are more or less correct, but I'll answer this.

Believers in this case is predominantly those that believe their own empty assertions are facts. But it could include those that base rejection of science on believed views that are undemonstrable or based on what they are told they should believe by other people.

OK. Thank you. Which reminds me of something I read in a science publication, if I can find it again I will post it.

 

[Arnaud1221]

When you closely, you see the lie.

 

[Dimi95]

I'm not sure what you mean. But there are things that science simply cannot explain.

And that's not the end of the world.

Science means 'the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."

It is based on 'empirical evidence and facts'.

That includes the idea of abiogenesis leading to what is considered by many, evolution.

In abiogenesis the only thing missing is the chemistry behind the proccess which is not of a big deal since it is very logical that life could have originated deep in the waters influnced by many possible natural ways.
It has many possibilities , but in one of them is certainly the answer.

I don't belive that we will make life again , but i belive that we will discover a way to explain the chemistry behind it.For example, If the chemistry can be dependent on other external sources such as the powers in this universe,why not.We don't know when , where and what will be discovered.That's what is good about science,you don't invent it , you discover it.

I say this because i have talked with someone who explained to me how hard is to do it.They are fighting with time , which is not a good ally in their case.
You should do a little research about it.

Now let's move to something else

So the issue that many have with you here is the way you speak things about science and what science serves to.

This is what you do , you ask some questions that by default put science out of its domain.And we who learn science know to speak about science only in its domain , because in that way we know what is verifiable.
So basically it's just like a football match , but we start with 1:0 for you and we ask ourselfs why is that?

I think that everybody wants your answer on why do you reject to be corrected?

Don't forget that by your line of questioning you tell us where the conversation is leading to.

"But There are things that science simply cannot explain" - this is what you said.

This is what i would say :

"There are things that science cannot explain"

Try to find the difference on how they differ in meaning.

When i read what you wrote as you would say it , i feel as you are saying that is some bad thing in the first place.

No bad blood , just an advice

 

[YoursTrue]

And that's not the end of the world.

Science means 'the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."

It is based on 'empirical evidence and facts'.



In abiogenesis the only thing missing is the chemistry behind the proccess which is not of a big deal since it is very logical that life could have originated deep in the waters influnced by many possible natural ways.
It has many possibilities , but in one of them is certainly the answer.

I don't belive that we will make life again , but i belive that we will discover a way to explain the chemistry behind it.For example, If the chemistry can be dependent on other external sources such as the powers in this universe,why not.We don't know when , where and what will be discovered.That's what is good about science,you don't invent it , you discover it.

I say this because i have talked with someone who explained to me how hard is to do it.They are fighting with time , which is not a good ally in their case.
You should do a little research about it.

Now let's move to something else

So the issue that many have with you here is the way you speak things about science and what science serves to.

This is what you do , you ask some questions that by default put science out of its domain.And we who learn science know to speak about science only in its domain , because in that way we know what is verifiable.
So basically it's just like a football match , but we start with 1:0 for you and we ask ourselfs why is that?

I think that everybody wants your answer on why do you reject to be corrected?

Don't forget that by your line of questioning you tell us where the conversation is leading to.

"But There are things that science simply cannot explain" - this is what you said.

This is what i would say :

"There are things that science cannot explain"

Try to find the difference on how they differ in meaning.

When i read what you wrote as you would say it , i feel as you are saying that is some bad thing in the first place.

No bad blood , just an advice

Of course some scientists do feel that humanity is on the verge of great disaster. Not little disasters as some might think of them such as wars and illness, but total disaster. I do take vaccines when necessary.