@divegeester saidNot understanding how science works very largely explains why, when given a scientific explanation how something works (such as bio-chemistry or evolution), he thinks it hasn't explained how anything works and keeps asking the same wrong-headed questions over and over. "But how'd the little horse get inside the horseless carriage?"
And therein lays your problem.
It's like trying to explain a diesel engine to a Yanomami.
24 Jul 23
@moonbus saidIf you would just please explain the scientific explanation I have been asking for, this would have a short conversation concerning why it is accepted mindlessness could do this. Difficult to trust "the science" if you cannot explain it, and since practically all of the explanations given had something to do with religious beliefs or lack thereof, not science. You seem to be claiming questioning it is "wrong-headed" also has more to do with religion than it does science.
Not understanding how science works very largely explains why, when given a scientific explanation how something works (such as bio-chemistry or evolution), he thinks it hasn't explained how anything works and keeps asking the same wrong-headed questions over and over. "But how'd the little horse get inside the horseless carriage?"
It's like trying to explain a diesel engine to a Yanomami.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121376
24 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidDid you read the article in the pubmed link I sent you?
If you would just please explain the scientific explanation I have been asking for, this would have a short conversation concerning why it is accepted mindlessness could do this. Difficult to trust "the science" if you cannot explain it, and since practically all of the explanations given had something to do with religious beliefs or lack thereof, not science. You seem to be claiming questioning it is "wrong-headed" also has more to do with religion than it does science.
20th time of asking
😂
@kellyjay saidQuestioning per se is not wrong-headed. But asking wrong-headed questions isn't going to get you any answers. Asking how informational instructions get into cells is a wrong-headed question; it's like asking how the little horse got inside a diesel engine. There is no horse inside a diesel engine, and there are no informational instructions inside cells.
If you would just please explain the scientific explanation I have been asking for, this would have a short conversation concerning why it is accepted mindlessness could do this. Difficult to trust "the science" if you cannot explain it, and since practically all of the explanations given had something to do with religious beliefs or lack thereof, not science. You seem to be claiming questioning it is "wrong-headed" also has more to do with religion than it does science.
20th time answering:
The origin of primitive life is basic chemistry, only about 12 elements go into life as we know it, and they are common as dirt (oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and so on). Random shuffling of these 12 elements eventually, over time, brings them into such proximity that chemical bonds form and self-replicating molecules occur. Spontaneously, no intelligence required. It is simply a matter of probability: how many times, over time, do these chemicals come into proximity? The more times, over time, the higher the probability. It happened, the probability is therefore 1 (= 100% certain).
Once self-replicating molecules occur (through random mixing of the 12 or so elements), what keeps them self replicating is dynamic kinetic stability, as explained in the article to which Dive linked. In summary, the principle of dynamic kinetic stability is this: a more complex self-replicator has more means of adapting to changing environmental factors, than does a less complicated self-replicator. Hence, over time, the more complex ones thrive and replicate more than the less complex ones. This does not mean that only complex ones survive; of course, simple ones continue as well, but only so long as their environments do not change beyond their simpler capacity to adapt to change. The more complex ones not only thrive in changing environments, they migrate to other environments and thrive there as well. This explains not only complexity, but how wide-spread any given self-replicator is. No mind is required to get this process going or to keep it going, only the repeated operation of natural laws (chemistry and physics).
You think a mind is required because you keep asking wrong-headed questions about error checking (a little horse inside the engine) and informational instructions (another little horse inside the engine) and working together (another little horse inside the engine). Chemicals don't work together, chemicals don't contain information, chemicals don't follow instructions, there is no such thing as an erroneous chemical so there is no such thing as chemicals performing error checking.
The bit I think you don't accept is that nothing in a scientific explanation of the origin of life guarantees that life as we know it will come about through this process, life is just a lucky fluke. That doesn't fit with your religious agenda (which tells you that the universe was made for man).
24 Jul 23
@moonbus saidAsking the fundamental question of cause is wrong-headed, you have a hard time questioning what you want to be true. The more time over time doesn't alter anything, too many factors have to come into play, not only that on the path to life, it is a race in each successful step that degrading can also happen to necessary products during the process. You have a simplistic version of reality and are attempting to make it fit reality. Small wonder you only pretended to watch Tour's full talk, you would have been faced with Chemistry that dispels your Disneyland version of the beginning.
Questioning per se is not wrong-headed. But asking wrong-headed questions isn't going to get you any answers. Asking how informational instructions get into cells is a wrong-headed question; it's like asking how the little horse got inside a diesel engine. There is no horse inside a diesel engine, and there are no informational instructions inside cells.
20th time answerin ...[text shortened]... e. That doesn't fit with your religious agenda (which tells you that the universe was made for man).
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121376
24 Jul 23
@kellyjay said“Degrading” ?
Asking the fundamental question of cause is wrong-headed, you have a hard time questioning what you want to be true. The more time over time doesn't alter anything, too many factors have to come into play, not only that on the path to life, it is a race in each successful step that degrading can also happen to necessary products during the process. You have a simplistic ve ...[text shortened]... alk, you would have been faced with Chemistry that dispels your Disneyland version of the beginning.
What are you on about?
Mutations occur in DNA, (random, or caused by outside factors) some of these are beneficial and give the species a biological or environmental advantage, others are advantage neutral, and others cause disadvantages…such as causing proneness to disease or other disability and therefore inhibit the passing on of those genes and so the trait dies out or is diminished.
Do some reading ffs.
24 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidWhat? It's 'wrong - headed' to ask fundamental questions? Better, you think, to believe that snakes can talk, and never to question this because...You want it to be true. No matter how many times it's explained to you, you come back with the same repost, 'Yes but it can't be true because god did it...' 'Yes but it can't be true because god did it.'
Asking the fundamental question of cause is wrong-headed, you have a hard time questioning what you want to be true. The more time over time doesn't alter anything, too many factors have to come into play, not only that on the path to life, it is a race in each successful step that degrading can also happen to necessary products during the process. You have a simplistic ve ...[text shortened]... alk, you would have been faced with Chemistry that dispels your Disneyland version of the beginning.
Despite all of the scientific evidence, it's difficult, I'm sure, in a phenotypical or behavioral sort of way, to accept that everything wends from a common ancestor, when you are daily bombarded with mythological writings which say that your god made everything, but there are indicators. You and the parrot, for example, apparently have a great deal in common.
24 Jul 23
@indonesia-phil saidTo think mindlessness could manipulate material so that consciousness could arise from an unconscious, uncaring process is a galactic miracle encompassing the universe. That is a greater impossibility even in your own world view, than a spiritual being acting through a snake is in mine.
What? It's 'wrong - headed' to ask fundamental questions? Better, you think, to believe that snakes can talk, and never to question this because...You want it to be true. No matter how many times it's explained to you, you come back with the same repost, 'Yes but it can't be true because god did it...' 'Yes but it can't be true because god did it.'
Despite all of t ...[text shortened]... , but there are indicators. You and the parrot, for example, apparently have a great deal in common.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121376
@kellyjay saidThis is just your opinion.
To think mindlessness could manipulate material so that consciousness could arise from an unconscious, uncaring process is a galactic miracle encompassing the universe. That is a greater impossibility even in your own world view, than a spiritual being acting through a snake is in mine.
What else do you have?
25 Jul 23
@moonbus saidIt's also analagous to the 100 monkeys theory. Given "enough" time, which of course would vary based on the environment, life should arise. Given a horrible environment, that would stretch the "enough" time value to longer than the lifetime of the environment itself. On a "pro-life" world, the odds would certainly approach certainty fairly quickly, again, given "enough" time.
Questioning per se is not wrong-headed. But asking wrong-headed questions isn't going to get you any answers. Asking how informational instructions get into cells is a wrong-headed question; it's like asking how the little horse got inside a diesel engine. There is no horse inside a diesel engine, and there are no informational instructions inside cells.
20th time answerin ...[text shortened]... e. That doesn't fit with your religious agenda (which tells you that the universe was made for man).
25 Jul 23
@suzianne saidThe 100 monkeys thing only works with progression.If a monkey types the word "now" for example it then needs to go on to the next stage and not start over.
It's also analagous to the 100 monkeys theory. Given "enough" time, which of course would vary based on the environment, life should arise. Given a horrible environment, that would stretch the "enough" time value to longer than the lifetime of the environment itself. On a "pro-life" world, the odds would certainly approach certainty fairly quickly, again, given "enough" time.
It's the same with evolution.If a primitive organism develops an eye for example this is a progression.The next evolutionary progression must be an eye plus an ear for example
25 Jul 23
@suzianne saidThat theory was tested at a university for a few months, outside of using the typewriter as a toilet, in 6 months not one word was produced, not even "A" or "I" because those require spaces around them. What we are talking about is a series of events moving toward life not just a simple combination being found once, moreover, there could never be a limitless amount of time given to do this for several reasons, first according to science there were only a few billion years to do it in, second, all the conditions and requirements must be met, limiting where and when it could even be attempted, third, the ingredients have to be there and once the chemical reactions start things change making all of that as well as many other things moving targets that are not limitless. The details matter, and outside of overreaching simplistic theories, no means of overcoming the odds has been offered.
It's also analagous to the 100 monkeys theory. Given "enough" time, which of course would vary based on the environment, life should arise. Given a horrible environment, that would stretch the "enough" time value to longer than the lifetime of the environment itself. On a "pro-life" world, the odds would certainly approach certainty fairly quickly, again, given "enough" time.