“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution” (is it now?)

www.apologeticspress.org ^ | Nov 19 2012 | Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[muawiyah]

Actually, it is very relevant ~ and may, in fact, be the only relevant thing.

[muawiyah]

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2013/05/16/dnaguided_assembly_yields_novel_ribbonlike_nanostructures.html ~ symmetry breaking goodness!

[muawiyah]

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2013/05/16/dnaguided_assembly_yields_novel_ribbonlike_nanostructures.html ~ magic wand appears! This stuff is all in the math.

[jwalsh07]

Biogenesis is a law that has never been falsified. Abiogenesis is wishful thinking.

[Heartlander]

Well let’s cut to the chase - do you believe human consciousness ultimately comes from mindlessness?

[muawiyah]

I’m not an expert in either field ~ so, let’s leave the analysis up to those who are.

[Texas Songwriter]

Will you give this thread accurate, real science proving String Theory. Not presuppositions, not possibilities,....just the facts....just the hard science. Has string theory been proven?

[Sloth]

Next up, in a huge leap of complexity, are the bacteria, whose RNA has become complex enough to be DNA, which reproduce by dividing themselves, forming near identical nuclei and organelles, over and over again. But they still retain their individuality as single celled organisms. Finally, when bacteria started to band together, with groups of them performing specialized functions, the final domain of evolution was created, the eukaryotes, which includes all plants and animals other than bacteria and Archaea.

You write smoothly enough that someone not versed in biology might think you know what you're talking about... but you just gave completely false descriptions of bacteria and eukaryotes. Bacteria DO NOT have nuclei or organelles. Eukaryotes ARE NOT multicellular organisms with specialization. Eukaryotes are cells with nuclei and organelles, whether single-cell (like protozoa) or multicellular (like us).

[Heartlander]

What a chicken-shit response… You don’t know anything about your own consciousness - morality - values? I’ll ask again, do you believe ’your’ consciousness ultimately comes from mindlessness?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

You underestimate what goes into the making of a nutcracker. If it is metal, it begins as ore buried underneath the ground. How pray tell can you extrapolate all that has gone into it from knowing how it cracks nuts?

Simply put, you can’t. Your estimation is only based on the finished product.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

You are correct, my error. The Archaea, like bacteria, have no cell nucleus or any other membrane-bound organelles within their cells. My intention was to distinguish them from the eukaryota, but I got ahead of myself.

[muawiyah]

You are shifting your discussion base ~ did I say anything about morality?

[tacticalogic]

I know of no other field of scientific endeavor that accepts repetition as a foil for equalibrium.

Do you have that in non-perjorative code, for objective analysis?

[muawiyah]

hmm, we see some scientific discoveries that are readily explained in terms of corollaries to 'string theory' ~ just gave you an example of one.

It's like this ~ some Chinese dialects/languages have as many as 8 tones and others have as few as 3, but they all have tones.

Detailed examination of the human brain has revealed there are actually circuits in the brains of Chinese people that allow them to process words with tones very fast.

To modern people it seems obvious that Chinese languages have 'tones' ~ but just a few centuries back no one knew that, least of all the Chinese! A famous court reviewed the evidence presented by philologists of the time and a simple exhibition of the concept proved to all that Chinese had 'tones' ~ once demonstrated, with a single example, the case was proven.

So here we have an appearance of another dimension, all wrapped up at the nano size level, doing things ~ symmetry breaking things BTW~ just as predicted by the primary theory.

So, it's there, even if all it does is line up nanoparticles along DNA side pieces in the form of a ladder.

What else do you suppose can happen in that dimension?

[Heartlander]

We are discussing abiogenesis - the mindless processes for life’s beginning… extrapolate…

I have argued that the discontinuous gap between humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of survival and extinction had been different, the gap would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as if cast in stone.
- Dawkins

[muawiyah]

Regarding 'human consciousness', I am presently of the belief that medieval orthodox Jewish thinkers came up with a solution to the difficulty of determining where consciousness comes from and where it arises.

They took your basic 'body, mind, heart, spirit, soul' 5 dimensional definition of 'self' and expanded it to 11 dimensions ~ some of them remarkably similar to several of the possible dimensions projected by string theory.

We also have the 1, 2, 3.... dimensions, plus action through time as a 4th dimension ~ and whether or not those 'dimensions' can be proven mathematically, we postulate that as we go from 1 to the other we get what's called 'a geometric progression' ~ that is, the space described not only gains dimensionality, it increases in capacity to explain a specific space almost infinitely.

Consciousness is something we know about because we are conscious ~ but it is elusive in scientific terms.

But I think you exhibited an intent to evasion in the way you imbedded your question in the context of something about 'morality'. That required you to imagine that I'm going to try to force you to discuss 'consciousness' strictly in the language of science or math ~ but i'm not, but at the same time I"m always wary of those who exhibit evasiveness ~ ..... ~ so, you tell me, were the medieval orthodox Jewish religious thinkers wrong?

[muawiyah]

Dawkins is so passe ~ if I were you I'd avoid getting all balled up in his old fashioned sort of materialistic nonsense.

He really misses the boat with the ape/human dichotomy anyway ~ current thought is rapidly moving into a discussion of how it is hominids, monkeys and apes separated at pretty much the same time ~ and not in the sort of sequence traditionally believed. This explains how it is we have some parts in common with monkeys that the apes do not! There's also some research that ties the origins of human speech into baboons, with apes totally outside that picture.

Now, about God, He's aware of all these things.

[Texas Songwriter]

Well, it's like this....anecdotes are not hard science, proof, or evidentiary. Yours explication is clearly misdirection and meant to deceive. My questions regarding your involkation of String Theory were simple, staight-forward, and unambiguous. Your retort was what I would have expected from your previous comments.

So, as you say..there...you have overturned nucleic acid biochemistry, cell biology, our understanding of cellular physiology with your analysis of 'tones of chinese language' and nanoparticles.

Now, certainly with the depth of your knowledge, your rush to propound biological functions as determined by String Theory....certainly you can explain the most rudimentary FACTS of String Theory.....so we can all have your depth of understanding on the subject and thus the universe around us.

[Heartlander]

Hmmm... I will just let your last two posts to stand on there own merit - I see no need to respond further…

[muawiyah]

A single event is all the proof that is needed, and there's your single event. Live with it. If you don't want to call it 'string theory' call it something else.

Is there perhaps a religious reason you don't want to track along with string theory? or are you holding out for a steady state universe with no quasi particles