Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

I've previously told the story of seeing a male cardinal help its mate eat hosta seeds by grabbing two intersecting stalks to stabilize the one on which she was perched. I just saw a lone male land on such an intersection and then inch its way to the top with both still in its grip where it feasted and knocked several down for its mate.

Mebbe next time it will teach me a few new tricks. God knows I think I'm pretty smart but I don't mind learning something new even from the maids at the grindstone or cardinals in the garden. It's a wondrous world and if you think there's nothing there but science you might miss it all.

 

[cladking]

(43) "Don't let your heart get big because of your knowledge.
(44) Take counsel with the ignorant as well as with the scholar.
(45) (For) the limits of art are not brought,
(46) (and) no artisan is equipped with perfection.(12)
(47) Good discourse is more hidden than green stone,(13)
(48) yet may be found among the maids at the grindstones.(14)

After 4000 years of confusion and de-evolution old words are the best.

ANCIENT EGYPT : The Wisdom of Ptahhotep : Plain Text of the Maxims of Good Discourse

The Wisdom Sayings of PTAHHOTEP - Papyrus Prisse & variants - the art of listening & good discourse - the tongue of the scales & the state of veneration

web.archive.org

 

[leroy]

Life appeared on a lifeless planet. Everyone agrees abiogenesis occurred.
Only two "mechanisms" have been proposed. One is evidenced, the other not.

Proposed:
Chemistry happens. Atoms and molecules come together and interact. Is that an acceptable premise?
When chemicals interact the results are predictable. Do you accept that?
Chemical interactions are observed to generate the components of life. The research is publically available.

I think you are shutting yourself in the foot, known chemistry can´t cause abiogenesis, your only hope is that current science is wrong and that the discovery of “new chemestry” solves the problem

Chemical interactions are observed to generate the components of life. The research is publically available.

Yes granted, the components of life can be explained by known chemistry……………….what known chemistry can’t do is explain how the components organized in the correct order,

As an analogy, known chemistry can produce ink, but from this fact to conclude that ancient books where written by chemical mechanism is a very big and unjustified stretch

Proposed:
There is an invisible, undetectable magician micromanaging the world.
He magically poofs various living things and species into and out of existence on a regular basis.

Which of these seems reasonable?

The later is more reasonable in my opinion.

Imagine that you whent to an other planet and found a space ship; and your options are

1 it was created by an intelligent designer , despite the fact that there is no prior evidence for any aliens living in that planet

2 it was created by an unknown chemical/physical mechanism

You obviously agree on that in this case design is a better explanation, so why is this disanalogous to life? Why do you think this logic doesn’t apply to life?

 

[Valjean]

Then you are suggesting the birds must compete with mountain goats for survival?

Huh?

I think you are shutting yourself in the foot, known chemistry can´t cause abiogenesis, your only hope is that current science is wrong and that the discovery of “new chemestry” solves the problem


Yes granted, the components of life can be explained by known chemistry……………….what known chemistry can’t do is explain how the components organized in the correct order,

As an analogy, known chemistry can produce ink, but from this fact to conclude that ancient books where written by chemical mechanism is a very big and unjustified stretch

Chemicals self-organize into components, which combine and interact. Read the research.

You're not very skilled at analogy.

The later is more reasonable in my opinion.

Imagine that you whent to an other planet and found a space ship; and your options are

1 it was created by an intelligent designer , despite the fact that there is no prior evidence for any aliens living in that planet

2 it was created by an unknown chemical/physical mechanism

You obviously agree on that in this case design is a better explanation, so why is this disanalogous to life? Why do you think this logic doesn’t apply to life?

Does the spaceship reproduce with variation?
Do you really think reviving the old watchmaker argument is a valid argument? The analogy doesn't stand.
Logic applies to propositions and correct reasoning.

You're quite determined in your attempts to undermine science, but I don't see a reasonable, evidenced alternative being proposed. Are you seriously proposing magic as a more likely mechanism than chemistry or physics?

 

[cladking]

Huh?

You said it.

chemicals self-organize into components, which combine and interact.

Is this volitional?

Logic applies to propositions and correct reasoning.

What experiment proves that!!!

. Are you seriously proposing magic as a more likely mechanism than chemistry or physics?

I would certainly suggest that magic is a better explanation than anyone's opinion.

 

[leroy]

Huh?


Chemicals self-organize into components, which combine and interact. Read the research.

So what? chemicals don’t organize in to abiogenesis conducive ways that is the issue.

Does the spaceship reproduce with variation?

no,
No……..But neither do prebiotic chemicals

But lets say that this spaceship has a 3D printer that can print additional copies of the spaceship………..would that harm the design hypothesis?.............would you therefore concude that the ship was created in a soup ?

Do you really think reviving the old watchmaker argument is a valid argument? The analogy doesn't stand.

why not?
Why does the analogy fails.

Why can´t I say that the spaceship assembled itself through unknown natural mechanism, in the same way you are proclaiming that the first cell assembled itself through unknown natural mechanisms?

Why is the first claim ridiculous and the second reasonable and likely true?

Are you seriously proposing magic as a more likely mechanism than chemistry or physics?

Well yes worst case scenario and even with you uncharitable approach and interpretation of theism…..

Magic: we don’t know if it´s real or not, and if real we don’t know what can can´t be done by magic

Chemestry/physics: we know that chemistry and physics can´t create life

A hypothesis that is known to be wrong is worse than a “we don’t know hypotheis”

You're quite determined in your attempts to undermine science, but I don't see a reasonable, evidenced alternative being proposed. Are you seriously proposing magic as a more likely mechanism than chemistry or physics?

We both believe in magic, but At least I have a magician,............

your attempts to undermine science

You are the one who is undermining science, you are the one who is assuming that current science is wrong and that “new” chemistry will be discovered and solve the problem

The claim “life can´t come from none life naturally” is consistent with every single scientific experiment and observation ever made.

 

[YoursTrue]

Rambling incoherent nonsense.

Once again, Darwin did not coin the term "survival of the fittest." He did use it, however, in later publications. Herbert Spencer is credited with composing the term. And Darwin later utilized the term. P.S. It's important as far as I am concerned to have accurate information. Thus, Darwin did not coin the term "survival of the fittest," but used it in later writings.

 

[YoursTrue]

In science, peers are publishing scientists in the same field.
So if there are people here that qualify as such, they are peers.

And who do you think such here might be?

 

[gnostic]

We both believe in magic, but At least I have a magician,............

No, creationists believe in the supernatural being - called “God” or some other names (eg Yahweh, El, Allah, Enlil, Ra, Zeus, Odin, etc), that have supernatural powers - eg magic, miracles, etc.

Do even know what magic is? Magic is like God turning dust of ground (like soil, clay) into fully grown human male (Adam), or miracle like Jesus turning water into wine. Neither are naturally probable, nor possible. Genesis 2 & John 2 are works of make-believe & fantasies.

Physics and chemistry, which are basis of all biological matters, eg muscles, organs bones, blood, tissues, neurons, etc, are all made of cells, in which there exist even more basic components (biological molecules & compounds) of the cells, eg proteins, DNA, carbohydrates, lipids.

Just because scientists haven’t yet experimented that recreate cells from those basic biological molecules & compounds, doesn’t make it they don’t how these biological matters & components work, individually or as the systems. And it doesn’t make it supernatural.

Physics, chemistry and biology, none of these involved magic, and while Abiogenesis is still a work-in-progress “hypothesis”, the science behind it - the chemistry plus biochemistry & molecular biology - none of them involved magic.

You are being disingenuous, Leroy, as you are trying to conflate the sciences of biology and biochemistry with magic. Not only you are ignorant with your claims, you are intellectually dishonest with them.

 

[gnostic]

Once again, Darwin did not coin the term "survival of the fittest." He did use it, however, in later publications. Herbert Spencer is credited with composing the term. And Darwin later utilized the term. P.S. It's important as far as I am concerned to have accurate information. Thus, Darwin did not coin the term "survival of the fittest," but used it in later writings.

i have mentioned that many times before, in past threads. We know that Darwin have used later this term, but “survival of the fittest“ isn’t an evolutionary mechanism. So that’s old news.

The problem is you and lot of creationists like you, misrepresent and misuse “survival of the fittest”, because you don’t understand that the phrase only describe what it like, but it isn’t the actual mechanism of evolutionary biodiversity.

The ACTUAL MECHANISM (one of five mechanisms) is Natural Selection, and the “driving forces” behind genetic variations are biodiversity and speciation are ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES, not “survival of the fittest”.

When the environment changed (eg climate changes like glaciation or aridity that can decrease food resources or water availability, or geographic isolation, etc), those with traits that are more adapted to the environment, the population growth are more likely to increase, than those with traits less adapted to the environments.

What “fittest” really means is adaptability, and what “survival” really means, is about reproduction, population increases/growth vs decreases/declines.

I will iterate again, Darwin’s framework is “Natural Selection”, not “survival of the fittest”.

The phrase (survival of the fittest) is merely descriptive, not explanatory, meaning it uses is more like adjective, like saying the sky is blue, is a description of colour, offering no explanation as to how the sky is that colour. If you really want explanation as to how sky looks blue, is because radiation hit the gases in the atmosphere, which are mostly nitrogen, meaning the blue wavelengths scattered more than other wavelengths (eg red, yellow, green). You need to understand how electromagnetic radiations of sunlight interact with certain atoms (gases).

Describing the sky is blue, isn’t explanation, just as using “survival of the fittest” to describe Natural Selection, isn’t explanation. You don’t understand that, and neither does @cladking.

cladking frequently use “survival of the fittest”, and not Natural Selection, just demonstrates cladking’s incompetency in understanding biological principles.

 

[YoursTrue]

i have mentioned that many times before, in past threads. We know that Darwin have used later this term, but “survival of the fittest“ isn’t an evolutionary mechanism. So that’s old news.

The problem is you and lot of creationists like you, misrepresent and misuse “survival of the fittest”, because you don’t understand that the phrase only describe what it like, but it isn’t the actual mechanism of evolutionary biodiversity.

Your use of the term "creationist" is certainly not fitting for all who believe in creation rather than the process of evolution stemming from whatever is imagined to possibly starting the process called "abiogenesis." Yes, I realize you probably do not consider abiogenesis as part of the theory of evolution, but that's another subject. And I also realize that there is a conundrum regarding the use of the term "survival of the fittest." I am simply saying that Darwin did use the term after it was termed by Herbert Spencer, despite the claim here that he did not use the term. That is all. I cannot read every post so if you've previously said that Darwin did not coin the term "survival of the fittest," but later used the term, I must have missed it.

 

[shunyadragon]

So next you'll tell me that Oryctolagus cuniculus aren't rabbits and rabbits aren't Oryctolagus cuniculus.

Not all rabbits are Oryctolagus cuniculus, only the European rabbit.

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again, Darwin did not coin the term "survival of the fittest." He did use it, however, in later publications. Herbert Spencer is credited with composing the term. And Darwin later utilized the term. P.S. It's important as far as I am concerned to have accurate information. Thus, Darwin did not coin the term "survival of the fittest," but used it in later writing.

I am indifferent to who coined the term. Charles Darwin used the term and concept. I am concerned with the misuse and misrepresentation of the concept in the sciences of evolution. It would help if you responded to my post that addressed this:


“Survival of the fittest” is a phrase from Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory that describes how natural selection works. It refers to the idea that organisms best suited to their environment are most likely to survive and reproduce.

• Darwin popularized the phrase in the 1869 edition of On the Origin of Species. However, he borrowed the term from Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher and sociologist, who first used it in his 1864 book Principles of Biology.

 

[shunyadragon]

Doesn't that all mean covering up ignorance or running blind? If you have rational science, you know what to expect and it turns out as expected. E=MC2 is logical. If you do not know the logic, due to irrational assumptions, I suppose you need a way make that look more modern and scientific. It adds up to a math major, using statistics, to assist with own their layman status in science; math cheat for science. It is used the same way each time. Without it, all the laymen are dead in the water. That is called life science. The theory cannot carry the weight of reason, all by itself.

In my last post, I presented the observation that dehydrated cells are not alive and nothing works. If we add water back, everything starts to work and life returns. There is no need for statistics when it is true. These are odds of 1 or 0. Statistics is for partial truth, ignorance, half baked theory and when you have no clue what to expect.

One project I did as a development engineer involved inventing a new process to treat mercury contaminated water, to below the levels of the then, BAT; best available technology. I invented a way to get mercury down to parts per trillion, and I scaled it to a pilot plant, and I was up and running and ready to process. I was told to stop and wait.

I was assigned a statistician, which I protested, since I saw no need. To me the process was all very logical chemistry and not statistical. But the powers to be, who were not experts in this new tech, felt safer with a dice and cards back up. Margin of error and averages allow you to move the line if need be. To them that could help with politics, if the crap hit the fan, when I started to discharge water.

The statistician was a young and bright mathematician, but not a chemist or engineer. He was blind to the process in terms of its underlying chemical logic and reason. You do not need to be a scientist, to use that approach. He needed the black box and the math to help him see what he needed to see; input and output. Statistical science is not real science, but is more like math-science with black boxes. I let him parallel me since he was doing his job and my rational bias was not this fault.

In the end, the statistics were not needed, since it was rational science and always stayed below the standard for all 100,000 gallons. The water model of life and evolution can be done in the head. I used sound chemical science.

In ancient times, they had the whims of the gods, which was a way to explain novelty, they could not explain. This was very wide scale back then. This is still true today, but now we have a math method, that can give us a sense of order. But it is not needed when reason appears.

Your analysis for how and why you use statistics is good, but it also makes you think, what would happen if you did not follow it? Would previous knowledge be enough to carry you through? Math-science and not full science.

I was addressing your misuse of statistics. Please respond to that specifically, The above is too rambling and incoherent.

 

[shunyadragon]

And who do you think such here might be?

I am in Soil Science.