|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 09/12/2008 : 04:53:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Bill scott
Does he offer up anything new on where the protocells might have originated from, or were they just there?
|
He is quoted as saying that they only could have originated from "a magic man." Scientists are now seeking this magic man for questioning.
|
All we have here are more regurgitated demonstrations of different was to manipulate matter. *Yawn* And at a conference on the origin of life?
I was hoping that they were going to explain how the matter and particles that once did not exist began to exist, and then demonstrate that for us. You know, making something exist from nothing. Then I would have been impressed. And yes you are correct, whomever can pull that stunt off has one cool magic show. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 04:55:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Bill S. said:
| Does he offer up anything new on where the protocells might have originated from, or were they just there? |
The protocells would have formed from fatty acids or phospholipids in water. The property of those molecules, a hydrophobic and hydrophilic end, makes them self assemble into "cells" or membranes in water.
|
You've missed my point. I was not interested in what the protocells were made of but, how they began to exist when they previously did not exist? How did the fatty acids begin to exist when at one time it did not exist? The phospholips in water?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 05:37:56 [Permalink]
|
Ah, I see it's begun already. Hi Bill! Welcome back!
Knowledge is cumulative. Nobody knows everything about a study going in, otherwise what would be the point of it? Also, this is not about cosmology but abiogenesis, a whole 'nother & different field of research.
The really interesting thing is that this study only covers one possibility. There are many more that could be considered and indeed, perhaps all of them happened. Could be that some of the process' are happening today, perhaps in the black smokers. Nobody knows -- yet.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 06:17:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
|
| Ah, I see it's begun already. Hi Bill! Welcome back! |
Thanks, Fil. Life has kept me busy.
| Knowledge is cumulative. Nobody knows everything about a study going in, otherwise what would be the point of it? Also, this is not about cosmology but abiogenesis, a whole 'nother & different field of research. |
But are they not completely intertwined? We got two big questions on the table as I see it:
1. How does matter that previously did not exist begin to exist?
2. How does matter, which previously did not exist and then begin to exist, begin to exist as life?
He who can explain how matter that previously did not exist can begin to exist and begin to exist as life has my attention.
He who has demonstrated it has my undivided attention.
| The really interesting thing is that this study only covers one possibility. There are many more that could be considered and indeed, perhaps all of them happened. Could be that some of the process' are happening today, perhaps in the black smokers. Nobody knows -- yet. |
My only point was that this was just another example of manipulating that which already exists, and says nothing about the origin of life, which was the topic of the conference.
Oh, and wouldn't manipulating matter with the preconceived intent to try and create life actually be a demonstration that nothing would have happened in the real world model without preconceived intent?
Because in this model nothing happens without preconceived intent. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 09/12/2008 06:43:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 06:43:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
You know, making something exist from nothing. |
Only the religious claim that something came from nothing, Bill. No scientist has ever made such claims about the universe. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 06:51:13 [Permalink]
|
Busy is good. More folks should try it.
But Bill, abiogenesis, which is the focus of this topic, deals with matter already in existence. "The warm, little pond," if you will. Others than biologists are diligently researching cosmology, indeed, a major experiment is taking place in Europe even as we speak.
I too, would like to know the origins of the universe but most likely never will. So at the moment, I am more concerned with the possible origins of life here on the already-existing Earth. Not as grandiose a question, I know, but one that is more likely to one day be answered.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 06:51:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
You know, making something exist from nothing. |
Only the religious claim that something came from nothing, Bill. No scientist has ever made such claims about the universe.
|
Yet they are no closer to explaining the exist of the universe, let alone demonstrating the explanation. Good luck with all of that. I know just give them more time. I ain't going to be holding my breath. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 06:57:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
But are they not completely intertwined? We got two big questions on the table as I see it:
1. How does matter that previously did not exist begin to exist?
2. How does matter, which previously did not exist and then begin to exist, begin to exist as life? |
Fill me in, how are these questions intertwined? The questions are at best succeeding each other historically, but an answer to 1 is not needed to be able to answer 2.
| He who can explain how matter that previously did not exist can begin to exist and begin to exist as life has my attention. |
Which are two different questions. For the first, (nuclear) physics is needed, the second is but chemistry.
| He who has demonstrated it has my undivided attention. |
Currently, you'll have to make due with incomplete answers.
| My only point was that this was just another example of manipulating that which already exists, and says nothing about the origin of life, which was the topic of the conference. |
The origin of life would necessarily be the result of manipulating something which already exists, since life on earth would be the result of chemical reactions of matter which existed on earth. So this, again, makes very little sense. And yes, it will all be manipulation in experiments, since we do not have a replication of earth complete with a time acceleration machine so we can watch thousands to millions of years of processes in quick view. What we can do is establish a likely series of events based on our knowledge of which chemical reactions are possible. Experimentation provides that.
Oh, and wouldn't manipulating matter with the preconceived intent to try and create life actually be a demonstration that nothing would have happened in the real world model without preconceived intent?
Because in this model nothing happens without preconceived intent.
|
No, it wouldn't be, because a reaction that happens in a certain set up, will also happen if that set-up occurs in nature. If I put arsenic together with certain substances in a certain soil type and a reaction happens that makes arsenic bind to the soil in the laboratory (ie, an experiment with intent), this same reaction will happen if arsenic is spilled in a certain soil with certain substances without any intent. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 06:58:36 [Permalink]
|
Since a scientific answer has proven difficult to ascertain after only a hundred years of modern effort, are you saying we should just all give up and go with the really really non-scientifically easy one?
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 07:03:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yet they are no closer to explaining the exist of the universe, let alone demonstrating the explanation. Good luck with all of that. I know just give them more time. I ain't going to be holding my breath. |
Nope, we know that there are limitations to what we can know. We cannot see any light which may have existed prior to the release of the cosmic microwave background radiation, so what came before must be inferred from its effects upon the CMBR, coupled with what we might learn from tools like the LHC.
Even if the ultimate origins of the universe are never explained, so what? Why does it matter to you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 07:10:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Busy is good. More folks should try it.
|
That depends on what you're busy doing. Quality, not just quantity. Right? Hmmm. Is it better to be doing nothing or to be very busy doing something totally useless? Not to hijack the thread with existentialism or anything...(as if it matters anyway). |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 07:14:13 [Permalink]
|
| Wow. I can't believe how popular Bill is. He posts something laughably ignorant, barely related to the topic and obviously intended to push everyone's buttons (dare I say troll?) and bam, everyone's responding. Quality matters, doesn't it? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/12/2008 07:15:18 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 07:18:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
|
Busy is good. More folks should try it.
But Bill, abiogenesis, which is the focus of this topic, deals with matter already in existence. "The warm, little pond," if you will. |
But what does the experiment that you pointed out contain that allegedly abiousgenesis does not contain?
Manipulation with preconceived intent. Without it no experiment.
Your experiment actually demonstrates the need for manipulation with a preconceived intent for any chance at non-living matter becoming life or living matter.
Now where you and I will disagree is the cause behind the manipulation and preconceived intent in the real world model.
| Others than biologists are diligently researching cosmology, indeed, a major experiment is taking place in Europe even as we speak. |
Yes but that experiment begins with matter already in existence. The one that begins with no matter in existence and ends up with matter will be impressive.
| I too, would like to know the origins of the universe but most likely never will.So at the moment, I am more concerned with the possible origins of life here on the already-existing Earth. Not as grandiose a question, I know, but one that is more likely to one day be answered. |
But my point is that knowing the origin of life only brings you right back to the origin of the matter and universe that made that life possible. Who/What is the first cause of the very first matter. Or is there eternal matter? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 07:29:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Or is there eternal matter? |
No. We already know that the universe once was nothing but energy. E=mc2, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 07:46:58 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by tomk80 |
| What we can do is establish a likely series of events |
Which means what we think might have happened but we do not know...
Which is finite.
| of which chemical reactions are possible. |
With our finite knowledge how do we even know that chemical reactions behaved in the same way back at the creation of life, whenever that was?
| Experimentation provides that. |
This experimentation proves that we can try and create a model of what we think the original model may have been like and then manipulate the experiment in a way that we think might recreate millions of actually years that would have been seen by the real world model and our preconceived results may or may not tell us something about the real world model but we can never truly know for sure with all the unknown variables that would be at play and out finite knowledge. So at the end of the experiment what we truly know is that we don't know. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 09/12/2008 07:50:21 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
If this works out…
