String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

McBell · Jun 23, 2016

First Baseman said:
I found a watch the other day. I wonder how many millions of years it took for all the parts to just randomly come together?

Still beating up that strawman....

beenherebeforeagain · Jun 23, 2016

First Baseman said:
I found a watch the other day. I wonder how many millions of years it took for all the parts to just randomly come together?

Approximately 13.7 billion years total, before a life form evolved that could create the parts and assemble it, then leave it where you found it.

beenherebeforeagain · Jun 23, 2016

Zosimus said:
Dubious. Yes, some organic molecules have been found in meteorites found in Antarctica, but not the nucleobases needed to form life, and in concentrations of several parts per billion.

Yet, you said that

Zosimus said:
These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue.

So, you either lied knowing that it has actually been detected outside of living systems, or you're doing a double-step now to cya: Oh, so they HAVE been found outside of living systems, just at low levels--which is not the same thing as NOT EVER HAVING BEEN FOUND. And as noted elsewhere, viroids are not living organisms anyway. And yes, they have been found anywhere living things decompose.

Okay, so you think "facts are not in evidence." Some people find the line of evidence reasonable as a working hypothesis, and expect that evidence will eventually be found in support of such a model of abiogenesis; evolution into modern forms from earlier forms has already been well demonstrated.

But if the evidence and reasoning doesn't convince you, then please, let's hear the facts that you think are in evidence on the origin and development of life.

jeager106 · Jun 23, 2016

Mestemia said:
except you have not explained evolution in your post.
You explained abiogenesis.

I have 2 degrees. They aren't in this subject.

I don't know who mankind got here.
Frankly evolution works for me in light of different scientific explanation.
How do I know a Power greater than man isn't responsible?

Zosimus · Jun 23, 2016

Ouroboros said:
Ah. You weren't clear on that.

Isn't tissue a collection of cells forming a wall? What about blood cells? They don't have nucleobases? And viroids are only found in tissue? Do you have any link to an article about this, because it sounds very, very strange to me.

Okay... let's start at the beginning. Life, as we know it, consists of either DNA or RNA. Human cells use DNA for its source information and RNA to carry this information out to the cell for such activities as building protein. Viruses and viroids typically do not have DNA. They consist entirely of RNA. RNA does not contain thymine. DNA does not contain uracil. When DNA information is transcribed into RNA uracil is substituted for thymine.

Viroids are the smallest and most basic unit of biological information that might arguably be considered alive. Viroids do not carry coding RNA. That is to say that viroids do not contain instructions for building protein. Viruses, on the other hand, contain coding RNA and come inside a protein sheath that protects the virus from the outside world. This fact generates a dilemma for abiogenesis because theoretically a virus needs to not only self-assemble but also magically fall into a protein coat that just happened to occur at exactly the same time. Viroids, however, do not travel inside protein coats. Accordingly, it is far easier to hypothesize that viroids can self-assemble in the wild.

Neither viroids nor viruses can replicate without infecting a cell. The machinery inside the cell is hijacked and used to replicate. Scientists hope to find a mechanism for self-replicating RNA as the basis for the initial spark of life on Earth.[/quote]

Besides, NASA have made nucleobases artificially in lab for the purpose to show how they can form in space (since they've found several of them in asteroids in the past): http://www.space.com/29057-life-building-blocks-created-nasa-lab.html

No offense to NASA, but DNA and RNA are built out of nucleotides. Nucleotides are formed from nucleobases, a sugar molecule, and one or more phosphate groups.

Ouroboros · Jun 23, 2016

Zosimus said:
Okay... let's start at the beginning. Life, as we know it, consists of either DNA or RNA. Human cells use DNA for its source information and RNA to carry this information out to the cell for such activities as building protein. Viruses and viroids typically do not have DNA. They consist entirely of RNA. RNA does not contain thymine. DNA does not contain uracil. When DNA information is transcribed into RNA uracil is substituted for thymine.

Viroids are the smallest and most basic unit of biological information that might arguably be considered alive. Viroids do not carry coding RNA. That is to say that viroids do not contain instructions for building protein. Viruses, on the other hand, contain coding RNA and come inside a protein sheath that protects the virus from the outside world. This fact generates a dilemma for abiogenesis because theoretically a virus needs to not only self-assemble but also magically fall into a protein coat that just happened to occur at exactly the same time. Viroids, however, do not travel inside protein coats. Accordingly, it is far easier to hypothesize that viroids can self-assemble in the wild.

Neither viroids nor viruses can replicate without infecting a cell. The machinery inside the cell is hijacked and used to replicate. Scientists hope to find a mechanism for self-replicating RNA as the basis for the initial spark of life on Earth.

You're missing the point. You're now talking about something different.

You said the nucleobases only exists in tissue. I don't think that's right because tissue is a form of organ that consists of multiple cells that are joined. Virus and bacteria are prokaryotes which are not part of tissue.

No offense to NASA, but DNA and RNA are built out of nucleotides. Nucleotides are formed from nucleobases, a sugar molecule, and one or more phosphate groups.

You said nucleobases don't exist outside of tissue. NASA found nucleobases in asteroids.

If you now are moving the goal post to nucleotides instead, that's fine, but then correct your earlier statement to say that you mean nucleotides and not nuceobases, and that you didn't mean tissue but rather something else. I only corrected you on the things that I consider to be wrong, and you haven't convinced me otherwise.

Zosimus · Jun 23, 2016

Shadow Wolf said:
Obviously, your math is wrong because there is no chance for a watch to self-assemble. The chance of it happening isn't 115, but 0.

I didn't say 115, I said 115!

115! means 115 x 114 x 113 x 112 x 111 ... x 3 x 2 x 1.

Why did I pick this number? Because I looked online and found that a Rolex has 115 moving parts. If we pick one of the 115 parts at random to go in the first slot, what is our chance of picking the right part? The answer is 1 in 115. Assuming that we get that right, we will have 114 parts left and thus we will have 1 chance in 114 of randomly picking the next part.

Thus, the chance of a watch self-assembling is less than 1 in 2.925x10^188 so obviously the chances of that happening are very remote.

Zosimus · Jun 23, 2016

beenherebeforeagain said:
So, you either lied knowing that it has actually been detected outside of living systems, or you're doing a double-step now to cya: Oh, so they HAVE been found outside of living systems, just at low levels--which is not the same thing as NOT EVER HAVING BEEN FOUND. And as noted elsewhere, viroids are not living organisms anyway. And yes, they have been found anywhere living things decompose.

Two of the necessary four nucleobases have been found in asteroids. Since four of the necessary nucleobases have not been found outside of a living system (such as a viroid), the chances of a viroid spontaneously assembling is zero.

Okay, so you think "facts are not in evidence." Some people find the line of evidence reasonable as a working hypothesis, and expect that evidence will eventually be found in support of such a model of abiogenesis

Yes. I have a word for this. I call it faith.

But if the evidence and reasoning doesn't convince you, then please, let's hear the facts that you think are in evidence on the origin and development of life.

Since the necessary base structures are not known to occur outside of living systems, all the data indicate that abiogenesis is impossible. In the event that you find all four nucleobases outside of a living system and the nucleobases are formed up correctly into nucleotides (or even nucleosides), I will revise my opinion–not before.

Zosimus · Jun 23, 2016

Ouroboros said:
You said nucleobases don't exist outside of tissue. NASA found nucleobases in asteroids.

That's correct. Did I stutter? The necessary nucleobases are not known to occur in nature. You require 4. You have found 2. Keep looking.

Ouroboros · Jun 23, 2016

Zosimus said:
That's correct. Did I stutter? The necessary nucleobases are not known to occur in nature. You require 4. You have found 2. Keep looking.

Apparently you must've stuttered. Here's what you said, verbatim, "There are 4 possible nucleobases. These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue."

You meant to say, two of these nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living organisms. There's a difference.

So yes, you seemed to have stuttered.

Besides, there are nucleobase analogues that are not of the four (or five) basic ones, if I understand it right. Several of them were found in the asteroid, and some are even used in cancer treatment. But that's just my very cursory understanding of it.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150710-genetic-alphabet/

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/synthetic-dna-cells/

(Y and X added)

And apparently, there could be a vast number more that we haven't even figured out yet.

Milton Platt · Jun 23, 2016

Dante Writer said:
Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.

After analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles - which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, Kaku concluded that the universe is a “Matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore,” Kaku said, according to an article published in the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies.

“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” Kaku, author of The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind, said in a 2013 Big Think video posted on YouTube.

“The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

String Theory “revolutionized” mathematics and physics by demonstrating a “super symmetry” in the universe. Kaku said it also explains gaps in the Big Bang theory.

“First of all, the Big Bang wasn’t very big. Second of all, there was no bang. Third, Big Bang Theory doesn’t tell you what banged, when it banged, how it banged. It just said it did bang. So the Big Bang theory in some sense is a total misnomer,” the well-known physicist said in 2015.

“We need a theory that goes before the Big Bang, and that’s String Theory. String Theory says that perhaps two universes collided to create our universe, or maybe our universe is butted from another universe leaving an umbilical cord….

“Some people believe that maybe, just maybe, we have detected evidence of that umbilical cord.”

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/a...cientist-michio-kaku-proves-existence-god.htm

Your Thoughts?

If he believes in any god it is a deistic god, like that of Spinoza, and not the Christian, or Islamic, (or whatever). There seems to be no evidence of an original article to be found, no scientific paper written, etc. Only people quoting (and modifying) other peoples statements. Further, what expertise has a physicist in detecting the presence of gods???
http://barthsnotes.com/2016/06/12/no-michio-kaku-has-not-found-proof-that-god-exists/

Zosimus · Jun 23, 2016

Ouroboros said:
Apparently you must've stuttered. Here's what you said, verbatim, "There are 4 possible nucleobases. These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue."

You meant to say, two of these nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living organisms. There's a difference.

So yes, you seemed to have stuttered.

Besides, there are nucleobase analogues that are not of the four (or five) basic ones, if I understand it right. Several of them were found in the asteroid, and some are even used in cancer treatment. But that's just my very cursory understanding of it.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150710-genetic-alphabet/

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/synthetic-dna-cells/

(Y and X added)

And apparently, there could be a vast number more that we haven't even figured out yet.

You're behind the times. There is also a P and a Z to play with.

However, I don't see why this is relevant. As I said, there are four possible nucleobases [for making the smallest known viroid]. These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue.

The existence of 9 possible letters, 5 of which do not occur in the smallest known viroid is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Revoltingest · Jun 23, 2016

jeager106 said:
Here is a simple explanation of evolution.
Life sprang into existence from pond scum just like the encyclopedia sprang
from an explosion in a print shop.
One wonders how many print shops exploding it would take to produce
a dictionary?

It's a funny analogy, but it's not comparable........
Your print shop explosion is a singular event, while abiogenesis had many orders of
magnitude more opportunities to occur. The planet had billions of years, uncountable
cubic feet of fecund volume (each chock full of many useful molecules), possibly multiple
chemical pathways, & several possible sources (comets, mud, water, clay). This makes
probabilistic calculations impossible.

Ouroboros · Jun 23, 2016

Zosimus said:
You're behind the times. There is also a P and a Z to play with.

However, I don't see why this is relevant. As I said, there are four possible nucleobases [for making the smallest known viroid]. These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue.

*sigh* If you can't see what's wrong with what you're saying, there's no need to continue this discussion.

jeager106 · Jun 23, 2016

Revoltingest says:

It's a funny analogy, but it's not comparable........
Your print shop explosion is a singular event, while abiogenesis had many orders of magnitude more opportunities to occur.
The planet had billions of years, uncountable cubic feet of fecund volume, possibly multiple chemical pathways,
& several possible sources (comets, mud, water, clay). This makes probabilistic calculations impossible.
Revoltingest is quite right of course.
As usual when I'm not sure of an answer I make a funny.
Well sometimes it's a funny.
Well to some it's a funny.
Perhaps some find it funny.
It could be a few people find it funny.
O.K! IT AIN'T SO STINKIN' FUNNY!

jeager106 · Jun 23, 2016

Mestemia said:
except you have not explained evolution in your post.
You explained abiogenesis.

Hey. I'm a conservative! Whad da ya 'spect?
PERFECTION?

Ouroboros · Jun 23, 2016

Revoltingest said:
It's a funny analogy, but it's not comparable........
Your print shop explosion is a singular event,

And it does produce or "create" things. Things will melt and fuse in a shop explosion. Melted clumps of plastic and such that never existed in that exact shape and form before. The chances a plastic piece will melt and/or fuse and produce an exact shape that it did, are astronomically small. It will always produce a shape, but the exact shape is never the same. Statistically, each shape is impossible to be produced on a singular event.

idav · Jun 23, 2016

Zosimus said:
Okay, here's my generalized answer.

Imagine that I have a theory about evaporation. My theory works perfectly except when humidity levels are 100 percent. In fact, studies show that even at 99 percent humidity, my theory works quite badly. When you mention this to me I say, "But my theory is about water and humidity levels are water, the standard in which experiments show that my theory exists."

How would you respond to me?

You may as well say light isn't energy because it has no mass. Light is pure form of energy so of course there is no mass. Mass doesn't occur until matter forms, light is not matter so we shouldn't expect it to have mass. That certainly doesn't mean light doesn't fit into the equation e=mc^2, it is energy plain and simple. Energy is the basis for calculating mass against matter, and increased mass coming from matter in the form of a black hole is the other side of the equation that would essentially does the same as something going the speed of light, dilates spacetime almost to its breaking point.

Revoltingest · Jun 23, 2016

Zosimus said:
The smallest known viroid contains 246 nucleobases. There are 4 possible nucleobases. These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue. However, we're going to do a math calculation that supposes that:

1. The exact right number of nucleobases exists in some hypothetical primordial soup.
2. These nucleobases are going to actually unite to form a chain of some sort.
3. If the first nucleobase pair is correct, its corresponding match will automatically fall into place.

With these assumptions, what are the chances that the smallest possible viroid could self-assemble? The answer is 4^123 or about 1.13 x 10^74

What are the chances that a watch could self-assemble?

It takes 115 pieces to make a common watch. Assuming that all the pieces are magically available and that they are going to unite to make a watch of some sort, what's the chance that they will self-assemble? The answer is 115! or about 2.59 x 10^114 times more difficult for a watch to self-assemble than for a viroid to self-assemble (given the assumptions in question).

Obviously, cells are more complicated than are viroids.

Your calculation doesn't take some things into account....
- The number of possible chemical pathways to self-replication, which could include more primitive forms than survive today.
- The number of molecules which had the opportunity to reach that stage.
- The number of potential reactions occurring over a billion years or so.
Add to this, you didn't show your work.
That's a major sin....were I your instructor in probabilistic systems analysis.

Zosimus · Jun 23, 2016

Ouroboros said:
*sigh* If you can't see what's wrong with what you're saying, there's no need to continue this discussion.

I don't doubt that you understand exactly what I mean to say. You're just trying to twist a comment into meaning something that it doesn't to try to score points.

The necessary components to assemble known viroids do not occur willy nilly in the environment. To the extent that half of the components might be created in outer space and might come crashing down and might survive entry into the atmosphere and might only be a few parts per billion does not somehow make it easier to believe in abiogenesis.

String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

Unbound

Rogue Animist

Rogue Animist

Learning more about Jehovah.

Active Member

Coincidentia oppositorum

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Coincidentia oppositorum

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Coincidentia oppositorum

Learning more about Jehovah.

Learning more about Jehovah.

Coincidentia oppositorum

Being

Pragmatic Libertarian

Active Member