Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[wellwisher]

Do you seriously think that you have a model? In the sciences a model and a hypothesis and essentially the same thing. So what is your model. Try to avoid excessive word salad. And how would you test it? If you cannot think of a reasonable test that could possibly refute it then you only have a hand waving explanation and not a model. Your model needs to be able to make de novo predictions. Or in other words predictions that are not known at this time. If you make a "prediction" where you already know the answer then that is not a real prediction. And if that prediction is false then your model is false as well.

Say we start with yeast cells, alive in water. If we dehydrate them, nothing works inside these cells and they are no longer alive, based on any definition of alive. If we add water back, rehydrate, everything works again and they again become alive. If we substitute any other solvent, for water, the cells are no longer alive, and nothing works properly.

This unique impact of water, on the only form of life, science can prove to exist; terrestrial, is a not a statistical observation. It is yes and no or odds of 1 and 0, indicating modeling life from the water side, is rational, for the parts; enzymes, DNA, as well as for the whole; alive.

If you have lab prove this to yourself. Do not take my word for it.

Extra:

If we try to model from the organic side, by removing and/or substituting organic pieces, one at time, there is no consistent effect. Red blood cells lose their nucleus and DNA and can still function for weeks. Statistics can help with that organic centric piecemeal approach, since reason does not fully apply. There is no simple universal logic for any and all possible organic tweaks. This is why we still get side effects from organic side medicines. If it had better logic you could design without the side effects. The dice and cards tool, leading, leave behind a dice and cards based side effects; methodological impurities due to math leading science.

The impact of water, and only water; single item, is the straw that stirs the entire drink of life, at all levels and components. You need organics for their added chemical capacitance, that water, and only water, can mold and animate properly. But in the end, water makes it all integrated and come alive, and be called life; on or off.

I don't have a lab, so I had to develop this the hard way, which is research what is already known and backed by experiments. I then tried, over the years, to reduce all that complexity, to simplicity; handful of principles, and then extrapolate back outward with chemical logic. I was a good Chemist so that part is easy and enjoyable. I could also compare with what was known but achieve with water side logic.

My original model was more organic centric, based on the hydrogen bonding of the organics. But eventually, I shifted to water, since the on off effect of water, implied a co-partnership between water and the organics. You need both. If you know one, you can predict the other, with water much more universal and simple, to have as the cause, to predict the organic effects.

Current life sciences, are based on math leading science, since the science is not self supporting by pure logic, so it can lead the math, that is needed due to the organic side complexity. They are stuck. The water side approach, offers the simplicity of one variable, with different settings, for any occasion; on or off.

To make how this all works easy to see, I use the water and oil effect, as the complementary and antagonistic, give and take, between water and the organics of life, that gives form to the organics. The two layers that form in the glass of water and oil, is repeatable, and reflects each other. Both seek minimal potential, with water leading, due to it being the dominant secondary bonding force; four hydrogen bonds per water molecule and 50 times more water molecules, than all the organics combined.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Which what quantum field is this? Or is this for @cladking only?

The quantum field composes consciousness. Look it up. They proved it. They've only been proving what I've been saying after I've said it though I do jot believe the idea originated with me

 

[ppp]

The quantum field composes consciousness

Twaddle.

 

[ChieftheCef]

No. It means that a simple common sense solution to a serious ongoing problem might have been available for only $20,000. In the unlikely event of unforeseen consequences the system could have been shut down easily. The expertise to do the job was available inhouse so the money would just be transferred from one pocket to another. Materiel costs were just a few thousand.

With the benefit of hindsight I can see one unforeseen consequence that might be catching up with them right about now. This could involve substantial costs. In the real world nothing is simple and the improvement in safety alone might be sufficient to pay for this specific unforeseen consequence.

Sure

 

[ChieftheCef]

The quantum field composes consciousness. Look it up. They proved it. They've only been proving what I've been saying after I've said it though I do jot believe the idea originated with me

Twaddle.

I mean it's just science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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."

The word creationist refers to anybody who believes that the universe was intelligently designed. Every culture with a creation myth that was or still is believed contains or contained creationists.

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

You don't know that. The thousands of scientists investing hundreds of thousands of manhours and the people investing millions of dollars funding their work all seem to think that they might be able to show how that happened.

The thing about chemistry is that you not only don't need to force a chemical reaction to occur when the proper reagents are brough into proximity in the proper environment, you can't stop it from occurring.

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?

You can, but unlike the scientists investigating abiogenesis, you don't have a mechanism for that. The abiogenesis researchers do: chemistry. What the latter lack is a scenario that brings the proper elements together.

Hoyle suggested a junkyard tornado to bring the parts of an airplane into proximity, but that wouldn't put the bolts into it. Chemistry needs no such help. The pieces drift together in an aqueous solution guided by their surface charges and "bolt" themselves together without tools or intelligence needed.

Analogies using inorganic machines like watches, 747s, and spaceships to represent living organisms simply aren't apt for these reasons.

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

No, only the creationists believe in magic, or the suspension of natural law. Naturalists expect that the laws of nature might be sufficient without magic.

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

We don't need new chemistry. As I said, what is lacking is a good understanding of where this process occurred (seafloor vents vs tide pools), the order in which nature's innovations occurred, that is, what the pathway from inorganic and simple organic molecules to life was, and the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of the first living cells.

Also, we don't know where life on earth originated. There is a good argument that it began on Mars and came to earth following Martian asteroidal impacts. The evidence is scant, but includes the idea that Mars cooled sufficiently to have liquid oceans long before the earth and may have harbored life before and once the earth became cool and wet enough to support life itself. If so, and if some of that life made it to earth and survived, then that life would prevent abiogenesis from occurring on earth if the process hadn't finished before that Martian life arrived.

An interesting speculation, but not relevant to the problem of whether naturalistic abiogenesis or supernatural creationism accounts for the life on earth.

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

Disagree. Every bit of science through history until now is consistent with the idea that naturalistic abiogenesis occurred. It's also expected that we wouldn't witness it happening again anywhere life is already found until man could reproduce the process artificially.

Incidentally, you also believe that the first life did not come from prior life, whether you consider a god living or not. Do you call you god living? If so, it's a life that didn't come from previous life. If not, then the life you believe it created is life that didn't come from prior life.

Not even the next moment can ever be predetermined or predicted.

You keep posting that.

I'm pretty sure I know what the moment after this one will be like in amazing detail, including what I'll be doing and where I'll be doing it, what my surroundings will look and act like, what the temperature and climate will be, what I'll be wearing, and where my dogs will be and what they'll be doing. I predict that the church bells will be audible on the hour and if I open the refrigerator or my closet, what I'll find there.

I assume that the same is true for you, but for whatever reason, you write words like those above.

We're confused and we reason in circles.

And those words as well. One can only surmise what your life is like that you would write that. I'm rarely confused, and my reasoning usually informs action that results in a desired and expected outcome.

Once again, that's probably also the case for you most of the day, when you're not posting. Although others might consider your thinking confused and your reasoning flawed, I doubt that you do.

How many times have you considered yourself confused or found yourself doing what you consider reasoning in circles so far today? Did you get dressed? Did you take a shower first? Have you prepared a meal for yourself today? How did those go? Did you feel confused or like you were reasoning in circles? I'll bet not.

 

[ChieftheCef]

The word creationist refers to anybody who believes that the universe was intelligently designed. Every culture with a creation myth that was or still is believed contains or contained creationists.

I am a creationist then but I hate Yaldabaoth/Set/Jehovah. I believe he is a trick by rogue to the the rest of humankind based on a lie by Akhenaten. I just realize based on science thar Nature is alive and she just loves us like we love our farts

I'll let it slide though because the basic sentiment of your "side" is correct and I'm not part of a provably manic episode with a psychotic break in societies mind.

 

[Pogo]

The quantum field composes consciousness. Look it up. They proved it. They've only been proving what I've been saying after I've said it though I do jot believe the idea originated with me

there is a big difference between saying there is a quantum field of consciousness and that there may be quantum effects in consciousness. as to proof, there are proposed experiments but besides that you never prove things in science, it is at best a hypothesis at this point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Say we start with yeast cells, alive in water. If we dehydrate them, nothing works inside these cells and they are no longer alive, based on any definition of alive. If we add water back, rehydrate, everything works again and they again become alive. If we substitute any other solvent, for water, the cells are no longer alive, and nothing works properly.

This unique impact of water, on the only form of life, science can prove to exist; terrestrial, is a not a statistical observation. It is yes and no or odds of 1 and 0, indicating modeling life from the water side, is rational, for the parts; enzymes, DNA, as well as for the whole; alive.

If you have lab prove this to yourself. Do not take my word for it.

Extra:

If we try to model from the organic side, by removing and/or substituting organic pieces, one at time, there is no consistent effect. Red blood cells lose their nucleus and DNA and can still function for weeks. Statistics can help with that organic centric piecemeal approach, since reason does not fully apply. There is no simple universal logic for any and all possible organic tweaks. This is why we still get side effects from organic side medicines. If it had better logic you could design without the side effects. The dice and cards tool, leading, leave behind a dice and cards based side effects; methodological impurities due to math leading science.

The impact of water, and only water; single item, is the straw that stirs the entire drink of life, at all levels and components. You need organics for their added chemical capacitance, that water, and only water, can mold and animate properly. But in the end, water makes it all integrated and come alive, and be called life; on or off.

I don't have a lab, so I had to develop this the hard way, which is research what is already known and backed by experiments. I then tried, over the years, to reduce all that complexity, to simplicity; handful of principles, and then extrapolate back outward with chemical logic. I was a good Chemist so that part is easy and enjoyable. I could also compare with what was known but achieve with water side logic.

My original model was more organic centric, based on the hydrogen bonding of the organics. But eventually, I shifted to water, since the on off effect of water, implied a co-partnership between water and the organics. You need both. If you know one, you can predict the other, with water much more universal and simple, to have as the cause, to predict the organic effects.

Current life sciences, are based on math leading science, since the science is not self supporting by pure logic, so it can lead the math, that is needed due to the organic side complexity. They are stuck. The water side approach, offers the simplicity of one variable, with different settings, for any occasion; on or off.

To make how this all works easy to see, I use the water and oil effect, as the complementary and antagonistic, give and take, between water and the organics of life, that gives form to the organics. The two layers that form in the glass of water and oil, is repeatable, and reflects each other. Both seek minimal potential, with water leading, due to it being the dominant secondary bonding force; four hydrogen bonds per water molecule and 50 times more water molecules, than all the organics combined.

Try again, and no, yeast cells are alive.

Challenge yourself. You should try to make a coherent argument for once. Keep it simple. If you have to start waving your hands you have lost.

 

[ChieftheCef]

there is a big difference between saying there is a quantum field of consciousness and that there may be quantum effects in consciousness. as to proof, there are proposed experiments but besides that you never prove things in science, it is at best a hypothesis at this point.

Never prove things in science, sure. Like never proved plate tectonics, or electricity or anything else. We live in a fiction. Why would I even take you seriously?

 

[Димитар]

Say we start with yeast cells, alive in water.
If we dehydrate them, nothing works inside these cells and they are no longer alive, based on any definition of alive.

If we add water back, rehydrate, everything works again and they again become alive. If we substitute any other solvent, for water, the cells are no longer alive, and nothing works properly.

Yeast can survive in the presence and absence of oxygen.
In the presence of oxygen, yeast undergo aerobic respiration and convert sugar source into carbon dioxide and water.
In the absence of oxygen, yeasts undergo fermentation and convert carbohydrates into carbon dioxide and alcohol

You said :
'If we dehydrate them, nothing works inside these cells and they are no longer alive, based on any definition of alive."

Does that mean that the processes are not by any definition 'alive'?

This unique impact of water, on the only form of life, science can prove to exist; terrestrial, is a not a statistical observation. It is yes and no or odds of 1 and 0, indicating modeling life from the water side, is rational, for the parts; enzymes, DNA, as well as for the whole; alive.

If you have lab prove this to yourself. Do not take my word for it.

Life does not mean just life on Earth.
Life is is the result of many procceses.
Water is the strongest compound and molecule to maintain life on Earth.

You need energy to combine two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen.
-You need heat.

When you start pushing them together, they resist because they both have negatively charged electron clouds.
*Electrons are also fermions, and thus subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Heat is just random motions of atoms and molecules.
-The hotter things are - the faster everything is moving.
-The colder things are -the slower
That is why there is an absolute zero but no absolute hot- you can gain as much kinetic energy as you want, but you can't lose more of it than you have.

In work, the energy is in an ordered motion.

If you get them going super fast, you overcome that resistance and they form the molecule.

Water is a compound and a molecule.

Water is what maintains life.

But yet , if you not take it , it is useless.

Again Life depends on procceses.

And if you drink only water - 2 or 3 months and then goodbye.

Extra:

If we try to model from the organic side, by removing and/or substituting organic pieces, one at time, there is no consistent effect. Red blood cells lose their nucleus and DNA and can still function for weeks. Statistics can help with that organic centric piecemeal approach, since reason does not fully apply. There is no simple universal logic for any and all possible organic tweaks. This is why we still get side effects from organic side medicines. If it had better logic you could design without the side effects. The dice and cards tool, leading, leave behind a dice and cards based side effects; methodological impurities due to math leading science.

This has nothing to do with the organic sides.

Oxygen is a requirement for the germination of spores of Fuligo septica.
Their ecological role in nature is to break down dead materials to recycle the nutrients for other species to utilize.

Oxygen is very , very electronegative, but the exceptional π-donating ability makes them activators rather than deactivators.

The impact of water, and only water; single item, is the straw that stirs the entire drink of life, at all levels and components. You need organics for their added chemical capacitance, that water, and only water, can mold and animate properly. But in the end, water makes it all integrated and come alive, and be called life; on or off.

No.

In chemistry, a hydrogen bond is primarily an electrostatic force of attraction between a hydrogen atom which is covalently bonded to a more electronegative 'donor' atom or group (Dn), and another electronegative atom bearing a lone pair of electrons—the hydrogen bond acceptor (Ac).

The electrons in an atom are 'That what is responsible for forming bonds'.

I don't have a lab, so I had to develop this the hard way, which is research what is already known and backed by experiments. I then tried, over the years, to reduce all that complexity, to simplicity; handful of principles, and then extrapolate back outward with chemical logic. I was a good Chemist so that part is easy and enjoyable. I could also compare with what was known but achieve with water side logic.

My original model was more organic centric, based on the hydrogen bonding of the organics. But eventually, I shifted to water, since the on off effect of water, implied a co-partnership between water and the organics. You need both. If you know one, you can predict the other, with water much more universal and simple, to have as the cause, to predict the organic effects.

So you have the answer.

The co-partnership or 'the processes'.

Water is an efect when heat is at work between two molecules of hydrogen and oxygen.

Remember how the oceans formed.

Current life sciences, are based on math leading science, since the science is not self supporting by pure logic, so it can lead the math, that is needed due to the organic side complexity. They are stuck. The water side approach, offers the simplicity of one variable, with different settings, for any occasion; on or off.

No , you are incorrect.

Remember what i said about yeast.

Also Microorganisms are growing in 100% hydrogen .

To make how this all works easy to see, I use the water and oil effect, as the complementary and antagonistic, give and take, between water and the organics of life, that gives form to the organics. The two layers that form in the glass of water and oil, is repeatable, and reflects each other. Both seek minimal potential, with water leading, due to it being the dominant secondary bonding force; four hydrogen bonds per water molecule and 50 times more water molecules, than all the organics combined.

I don't know why you stopped with hydrogen , honestly..

 

[cladking]

What? Nobody invented time as such, it was observed as a regularity of occurances and maybe marked by some 6.5 ton object as it is still marked by shadows of sticks.

You're kidding, right?


Someone noticed the hours rolling by so he just made note of them!

Without definitions, I have no more idea what this means than any human ever has, I rather doubt it does have a meaning.

You weren't aware that momentum applies to all things!

but please show us evidence of humans determining that the earth shadowed the sun.

And you've never seen the shadow of the earth on the moon!!!!

Now you are really out there, it wasn't till we had developed a mathematical understanding of orbits that we even realized there was a retrograde motion.

That's what you believe. Ancient astronomers certainly watched the planets and all celestial objects.

It is not surprising that you are unable to convince others of the value of your observations because you are incapable of limiting your speech to mutually understandable ideas and are incapable of providing any evidence for your unusual ones.

Sure, concepts like the moon only being overhead at high tide and the round shadow on the earth on the moon are too complex for modern people to understand. A shadow between the rainbows is a subject for science fiction.

I've told you how ancient science worked so you just choose to ignore it.

It was kindda like a waggle dance where the bee just "knows" the steps. It's achieved through observation and a kind of logic only available to other species which all use metaphysical language.

you have not learned to communicate

I'm sorry there don't exist words for things homo omnisciencis doesn't ken. I'm sorrier still people simply refuse to properly parse the existing words I use. There is no such thing as linear progress which lies at the heart of the TofE. There is no such thing as survival of the fittest that Darwin dreamed up to explain how species mustta evolved. We are not God's gift to reality nor are we even "intelligent" in terms people mean when they use the term.

Homo omnisciencis is a product of beliefs which are in turn a product of assumptions made by those who climb up onto the shoulders of those with the same assumptions et no al. Mebbe you should take some of the blame for any failure in communication. It takes two to tango but it also takes two for communication to fail.

 

[Valjean]

Try again, and no, yeast cells are alive.

Challenge yourself. You should try to make a coherent argument for once. Keep it simple. If you have to start waving your hands you have lost.

S/he's saying that metabolically inert organisms can't be considered alive; a question of definition, to be sure, but a valid point. Metabolism is generally considered a key feature of life.
So --- as long as we all understand each others' meanings, we can proceed.

 

[cladking]

See above. The watchmaker, AKA, 747 analogy, has been debunked a thousand times.

I used to believe this as well.

Now I'm more inclined to believe that complexity increases through consciousness. It is consciousness that is life so consciousness that confers life and increases its complexity. Believers can think of it as survival of the fittest since each generation will tend to be more conscious. That's not what it is but that's how you have to think of it if you believe in fitness.

 

[Димитар]

S/he's saying that metabolically inert organisms can't be considered alive; a question of definition, to be sure, but a valid point. Metabolism is generally considered a key feature of life.
So --- as long as we all understand each others' meanings, we can proceed.

Yes , you are correct.

But so is Environmental change a key feature of life.

 

[Pogo]

Never prove things in science, sure. Like never proved plate tectonics, or electricity or anything else. We live in a fiction. Why would I even take you seriously?

 

[cladking]

I am a creationist then but I hate Yaldabaoth/Set/Jehovah. I believe he is a trick by rogue to the the rest of humankind based on a lie by Akhenaten. I just realize based on science thar Nature is alive and she just loves us like we love our farts

Nice analogy (no pun intended).

 

[Valjean]

Never prove things in science, sure. Like never proved plate tectonics, or electricity or anything else. We live in a fiction. Why would I even take you seriously?

Exactly!
Proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific term. Ya gotta get hip to the lingo, man.

Science accumulates and tests evidence. The highest level of confidence in science is theory, not proof. Science is always open to new interpretations of new evidence.
Spherical Earth, heliocentrism, germ caused disease -- all facts -- and all theoretical and un-proven.

 

[Valjean]

I used to believe this as well.

Now I'm more inclined to believe that complexity increases through consciousness. It is consciousness that is life so consciousness that confers life and increases its complexity. Believers can think of it as survival of the fittest since each generation will tend to be more conscious. That's not what it is but that's how you have to think of it if you believe in fitness.

Complexity can arise from both design and blind physics.

Complexity increases both with and without life.

 

[Valjean]

Yes , you are correct.

But so is Environmental change a key feature of life.

Not following. Organisms thrive in stable environments.
Environmental change is a key driver of natural selection and speciation, however.