|
Hobozen

Registered: 11/03/11
Posts: 10,634
Loc:
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: teknix]
#19349427 - 12/31/13 12:35 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: teknix]
#19349428 - 12/31/13 12:35 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Add Hominids!
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: teknix]
#19349510 - 12/31/13 01:04 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Add Hominids!
Won monkey + won monkey = winner!
--------------------
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
hTx said: As science uninhibited by dogma progresses we will see more evidence come from research supporting the theory that consciousness, lifes awareness, is primary to evolution.
That's a beautiful story. I loved the certainty part.
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-elephants-mimosas-memories.html
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-plants-talk-to-help-them.html#inlRlv
http://io9.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-declaration-that-animals-have-conscious-awareness-just-like-us
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19593587 - 02/20/14 07:56 AM (10 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Cool research. None of it is any surprise to me, as I've personally speculated that these types of things are the case. The phenomenon with the seeds, however, was a nice twist, as I'd have expected that the communication would have been chemical and not acoustic.  ""The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states" - I'd already considered this idea literally a no-brainer. 
Yet, as I feel compelled to point out, none of this research touches the question of whether consciousness is primary to evolution. I'm presuming that the conception refers to consciousness as existing prior to evolution? The research you posted doesn't support this conception, it doesn't even refer to it.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
well no one has really posited consciousness as being primary to evolution...the research above was to counter Diploid and others arguments that animals and plants do not possess consciousness.
The above shows they do, and that also consciousness isn't simply a byproduct of the brain that evolved specifically with humans but is essential to all life, or it wouldn't nor couldn't be defined as a living thing.
This is essential to the theory, since if a living thing didn't possess at-least a basic consciousness, a most primitive neurocircuit, than the whole consciousness being primary to evolution wouldn't make sense.
As it stands, I considered all living things even bacteria and viruses to possess at-least a basic consciousness and it is this among other things which i've considered such as the fact that DNA itself shouldn't even have came about in a universe ruled by all randomness that led me to make this thread.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
I'd already considered this idea literally a no-brainer
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19594997 - 02/20/14 02:21 PM (10 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
such as the fact that DNA itself shouldn't even have came about in a universe ruled by all randomness
If this was a "fact" as you claim, then you could support this instead of making yet another mere assertion in a long series of base assertions.
This sort of constant noise adds absolutely nothing.
--------------------
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (02/20/14 02:40 PM)
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67884-what-are-the-odds-of-life-evolving-by-chance-alone/
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
Edited by hTx (02/20/14 02:39 PM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19595121 - 02/20/14 02:42 PM (10 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
More opinion - no fact. Try again.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19595159 - 02/20/14 02:50 PM (10 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
For those whom are educationally challenged or have no access to an online dictionary:
fact - a. Something demonstrated to exist
How quoting one contrary evolutionist, rather than the entire accepted field, constitutes a fact is the height of intellectual dishonesty, but standard in your posts.
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx] 1
#19595614 - 02/20/14 04:23 PM (10 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
from the article:
Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes.
Perhaps it has arisen from currently unknown natural processes? Teleology need not be invoked to explain biological evolution. But unadulterated materialsm appears inappropriate as well, an approach that (using known chemistry) these scientists have demonstrated (correctly) mathematically cannot explain the biochemical formations either. Perhaps the universe is fundamentally intelligent in some way that informs structures in the transition from chaos to order?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19595968 - 02/20/14 05:28 PM (10 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event.
I've debunked this nonsense here many times here over the years, but here it is again for the noobs:
Although the specific mechanism of the origin of life on Earth isn't known, it has been shown that amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) can self-synthesis given the right conditions. This has nothing to do with "vastly improbable events" as religious non-thinkers and a tiny handful of fringe scientists who have no peer-reviewed published works and who no one takes seriously assert.
Chemists Stanley Miller's and Harold Urey's famous experiment in 1953 put water, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia (of those only methane is an organic molecule) in a sealed, completely sterile environment with an electric spark to simulate lightning.
After a few days they analyzed the contents of the experiment and found that amino acids, the critical organic molecules essential to life out of which proteins are made, had appeared by themselves. The four carbon chemical bonds in the methane had broken free and rearranged themselves into the building blocks of life. Besides the up to 40 different amino acids that self-synthesized, numerous other organic molecules necessary for life also self-synthesized.
This happened without the benefit of a designer, god, miracle, alien, creator, spaghetti monster, or anything else besides water, methane, hydrogen, ammonia and an electric spark.
Although it is now believed that the Earth's atmosphere at the time of abiogenesis did not contain enough carbon or free nitrogen for this to have been the synthetic route to the first organism, it nevertheless clearly established that a natural processes COULD have produced the first life on Earth and modern experiments have confirmed this repeatedly.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Diploid]
#19596134 - 02/20/14 06:06 PM (10 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Your work here is never done.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
|
What part of 'fact' are you still struggling with?
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
|
|
Facts? The issue is not with amino acids but the specific sets of enzymes built out of those amino acids by chance alone. You haven't debunked anything that article actually said, Diploid. Try not to be so aloof when you don't address the actual points in question.
Furthermore, all I really said was that neither side has any proof of their position. As I pointed out, the mathematics are sound. Look them up if you don't believe me. I do not support teleology nor strict materialism. All I suggested was that the universe was intelligent.
I'm not so sure about that. Smug, maybe.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,759
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Diploid]
#19596504 - 02/20/14 07:41 PM (10 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
realistically, evolution (which is the the history of life on earth) did not start with any complex eucaryotic cells, but with procaryotic life forms, closer to bacteria - little phospholipid bags with enzymes that make the phospholipid membranes, and very simple DNA to make the enzymes... (very simple goodie bags.)
--------------------
_ π§ _
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
|
The issue is not with amino acids but the specific sets of enzymes built out of those amino acids by chance alone.
So what? Nobody is talking about wildly unlikely random anything. We're talking about the very non-random consequences of incoming energy from the sun, lightning, and the electronic configuration of atoms and molecules that have a demonstrable tendency to self-assemble into complex organic molecules as was shown by the Muller-Urey experiment. And again, more modern experiments that improve on Muller-Urey continue to support the notion that abiogenesis could well have been a consequence of the environmental conditions present here billions of years ago.
Nevermind that however unlikely abiogenesis may be, among the 10^20 planets in the observable universe, it's bound to happen somewhere eventually, as it apparently did here.
Open your mind. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in biology or medicine that makes any sense at all without the theory of evolution underpinning things.
As I pointed out, the mathematics are sound.
Bullshit.
First, the math was not presented in the linked article so tell me how you performed your analysis to arrive at the conclusion that "the math is sound"?
Second, the people who did this supposedly-sound calculation are not even named. They're referenced as "Two well known scientists".
Third, several scientists ARE named further down. The first is a chemist, not a biologist. The next one is a mathematician, not a biologist.
With the the third one the article finally gets one right. Mike Denton, who you quoted, is in fact a real biochemist and the only one qualified to render an opinion on the issue. I've actually met him. Unfortunately, he is a fringe scientist widely viewed as a crackpot by his peers. His only claim to fame is his well-known book "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis" which he wrote because (SURPRISE!) no peer-reviewed science journal would publish his pseudoscience. So he self-published without peer-review as his only recourse. If his work had any validity, it would have been published in a real science journal.
Finally, the fourth guy quoted is again a chemist, not a biologist. And guess what? He is another fringe crackpot who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. And these are the people you look to to form an opinion about abiogenesis? That's some funny shit! 
If that's the best Appeal to Authority you got, you'll need to try a lot harder.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,828
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Diploid] 1
#19596679 - 02/20/14 08:31 PM (10 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Nevermind that however unlikely abiogenesis may be, among the 10^20 planets in the observable universe, it's bound to happen somewhere eventually, as it apparently did here.
I agree with this -- a variant of the anthropic principle. Dude, I've got no agenda here. I was merely pointing out what the article said, not precisely what I think about all these things.
Open your mind. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in biology or medicine that makes any sense at all without the theory of evolution underpinning things.
When did I say anything contrary to evolution? I firmly accept evolution. I think the issue is whether mutations are completely random or not. Frankly I don't know. I never tried to even suggest I don't find evolution valid.
The scientist I found most interestingly tied to all this was Sir Fred Hoyle, whom I am sure you've heard of. Some crackpotish stuff, but mostly unfettered genius especially regarding his work on stellar nucleosynthesis. He originated the "747" remark. Was controversially denied the Nobel Prize in physics.
Believe me man, I'm an agnostic in these matters. You don't need to go attacking positions I don't hold.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
|
Dude, I've got no agenda here. I was merely pointing out what the article said, not precisely what I think about all these things.
Alright, alright. But don't take things personally. This is a debate-oriented forum so most anything you post is going to be jumped on. And it's a good thing. Truth can withstand any attack. Everything else falls apart. That's why this is the best forum in the Shroomery, IMO. But I admit I may be a little biased.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
|