Notices
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 363
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH

  1. #1 ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    67
    ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH
    BY SUHAIL JALBOUT

    Life appeared on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago. Its origin is still unraveled by scientists. Even though it is believed that the first living forms on our planet arose from inanimate matter, creating single-cell organisms in laboratories is still beyond the human reach. I have come up with a hypothesis about the origin of life on Earth which I would like to share with you.

    Prokaryotes are single-cell organisms that are the earliest and most primitive forms of life on Earth. They are very simple in structure, such as bacteria, and can inhabit any place on our planet. They live near-boiling hot springs, Antarctic ice, super-salty pools, sulfur spewing volcanic vents, acidic water, under glaciers, floating in the atmosphere, and miles down sea floors.[1] What is more interesting is that they posses very special characteristics.

    THEY SURVIVE IN SPACE

    Scientists from Open University in Milton, Keynes, UK conducted an experiment to investigate whether bacteria can survive in space. If they do, then astronauts can use them to recycle life supporting systems and perform “bio-mining” activities on planets and moons. Bacteria were collected from the cliffs of Beer, a small English fishing village, and were placed on and in small chunks of cliff rock which were sent to the International Space Station (ISS) on board of the European Space Agency (ESA). The rocks were put on the exterior of the ISS. Scientists inspected the bacteria after 553 days and found many were still alive. The survivors resisted the exposure to extreme ultraviolet light, cosmic rays, dramatic temperature shifts and solar wind.[2]

    THEY LIVE AFTER DEFREEZING

    Another interesting experiment revealed that very old single-cell organisms can be brought back to life after being in a frozen state for millions of years. A team of scientists led by Professor Paul Falkowski from Rutgers University, NJ, USA conducted experiments on Antarctic ice samples that harbor the oldest known frozen bacteria. The 8 million years old organisms came back to life inside a culture flask after a short period of time. [3]

    THEY ORIGINATE FROM INANIMATED MATTER

    Most scientists believe that the original atmosphere of the Earth was composed of water vapor, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. This mixture is thermodynamically stable; however, only in the presence of energy do its molecules change to other compounds. In 1953, this theory was tested in a laboratory by two American scientists, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. They sealed off a typical mixture of what they believed is close to the original atmosphere of the Earth, and then passed an electrical discharge through it. The energy produced by simulation of lightning acted on the mixture to produce organic substances such as carboxylic acid, aldehydes, and amino acids. These compounds are the basic elements or the building blocks that form the essential life molecules, proteins.[4] Later, experiments were conducted by other scientists whose work showed that RNA and DNA bases could be obtained from the Earth’s original atmosphere through simulated prebiotic chemistry. These experiments suggest that matter could produce the essential life molecules in the presence of energy not only on Earth but anywhere else in the universe. In fact, organic compounds are relatively common in space and are present in comets and meteorites.[5] The process and the mechanics by which all the essential life molecules are combined together to form single-cell organisms is still a mystery.

    From the above facts, I believe that the origin of life on Earth is not a by-product of planetary dynamic activities but due to galactic dynamic activities. There are unconceivable interactions between matter and energies that take place during the creation of a galaxy that do not exist on any planet or moon. These energies interact with matter to produce the essential life molecules, combine and house them in micro-bubbles, and create single-cell living forms. As stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and planetoids are created during the formation of a galaxy; single-cell organisms are also created. They are born whenever a star is born. Since 70% of their mass is water, most probably they exist where ever water-ice exists such as “wet” asteroids, “wet” meteorites, comets, and water-ice rings orbiting planets. When these bodies fall on planets or moons, they bring with them single-cell organisms in a frozen state. Depending on the environment of planets and moons, the organisms may survive or die or remain in a frozen state above or below the surface. Because these organisms are extremely minute in size, finding them in space or on celestial bodies is a difficult task.

    From the foregoing, I believe that the origin of life on Earth came from the water-ice ring that was in its orbit. Most probably frozen single-cell organisms existed in the ring before it collapsed and flooded a large belt around the Earth’s equator.[6] Water and single-cell organisms spread from the equator to the north and south poles creating oceans and populating Earth with life. It is not a coincidence that the oceans on Earth were formed 3.5 billion years ago and the fossils of prokaryotes are 3.5 billion years old. Both came from the same source.

    END NOTES
    [1] www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Prokaryote
    [1] http://thefactbox.blogspot.com/2010/...-factoids.html
    [2] www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11039206
    [3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070806- bacteria-ice.html.
    [3] news.nationalgeographic.com/news/.../070806-bacteria-ice.html
    [4] http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...../miller.html
    [5] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
    [6] http://2012forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=23313
    [6] http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=288230


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Suhail Jalbout
    ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH
    BY SUHAIL JALBOUT

    Life appeared on Earth around 3.5 billion years ago. Its origin is still unraveled by scientists. Even though it is believed that the first living forms on our planet arose from inanimate matter, creating single-cell organisms in laboratories is still beyond the human reach. I have come up with a hypothesis about the origin of life on Earth which I would like to share with you.

    Prokaryotes are single-cell organisms that are the earliest and most primitive forms of life on Earth. They are very simple in structure, such as bacteria, and can inhabit any place on our planet. They live near-boiling hot springs, Antarctic ice, super-salty pools, sulfur spewing volcanic vents, acidic water, under glaciers, floating in the atmosphere, and miles down sea floors.[1] What is more interesting is that they posses very special characteristics.
    Confusing... you do understand that bacteria are a subset of prokaryotes, don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Suhail Jalbout
    THEY SURVIVE IN SPACE

    Scientists from Open University in Milton, Keynes, UK conducted an experiment to investigate whether bacteria can survive in space. If they do, then astronauts can use them to recycle life supporting systems and perform “bio-mining” activities on planets and moons. Bacteria were collected from the cliffs of Beer, a small English fishing village, and were placed on and in small chunks of cliff rock which were sent to the International Space Station (ISS) on board of the European Space Agency (ESA). The rocks were put on the exterior of the ISS. Scientists inspected the bacteria after 553 days and found many were still alive. The survivors resisted the exposure to extreme ultraviolet light, cosmic rays, dramatic temperature shifts and solar wind.[2]

    THEY LIVE AFTER DEFREEZING

    Another interesting experiment revealed that very old single-cell organisms can be brought back to life after being in a frozen state for millions of years. A team of scientists led by Professor Paul Falkowski from Rutgers University, NJ, USA conducted experiments on Antarctic ice samples that harbor the oldest known frozen bacteria. The 8 million years old organisms came back to life inside a culture flask after a short period of time. [3]

    THEY ORIGINATE FROM INANIMATED MATTER

    Most scientists believe that the original atmosphere of the Earth was composed of water vapor, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. This mixture is thermodynamically stable; however, only in the presence of energy do its molecules change to other compounds. In 1953, this theory was tested in a laboratory by two American scientists, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. They sealed off a typical mixture of what they believed is close to the original atmosphere of the Earth, and then passed an electrical discharge through it. The energy produced by simulation of lightning acted on the mixture to produce organic substances such as carboxylic acid, aldehydes, and amino acids. These compounds are the basic elements or the building blocks that form the essential life molecules, proteins.[4] Later, experiments were conducted by other scientists whose work showed that RNA and DNA bases could be obtained from the Earth’s original atmosphere through simulated prebiotic chemistry. These experiments suggest that matter could produce the essential life molecules in the presence of energy not only on Earth but anywhere else in the universe. In fact, organic compounds are relatively common in space and are present in comets and meteorites.[5] The process and the mechanics by which all the essential life molecules are combined together to form single-cell organisms is still a mystery.

    From the above facts, I believe that the origin of life on Earth is not a by-product of planetary dynamic activities but due to galactic dynamic activities. There are unconceivable interactions between matter and energies that take place during the creation of a galaxy that do not exist on any planet or moon. These energies interact with matter to produce the essential life molecules, combine and house them in micro-bubbles, and create single-cell living forms. As stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and planetoids are created during the formation of a galaxy; single-cell organisms are also created. They are born whenever a star is born. Since 70% of their mass is water, most probably they exist where ever water-ice exists such as “wet” asteroids, “wet” meteorites, comets, and water-ice rings orbiting planets. When these bodies fall on planets or moons, they bring with them single-cell organisms in a frozen state. Depending on the environment of planets and moons, the organisms may survive or die or remain in a frozen state above or below the surface. Because these organisms are extremely minute in size, finding them in space or on celestial bodies is a difficult task.

    From the foregoing, I believe that the origin of life on Earth came from the water-ice ring that was in its orbit. Most probably frozen single-cell organisms existed in the ring before it collapsed and flooded a large belt around the Earth’s equator.[6] Water and single-cell organisms spread from the equator to the north and south poles creating oceans and populating Earth with life. It is not a coincidence that the oceans on Earth were formed 3.5 billion years ago and the fossils of prokaryotes are 3.5 billion years old. Both came from the same source.
    This isn't a new idea. It's just a variant of panspermia. It's not a particularly wild or controversial notion, but as we learn more about what's possible on Earth, it's looking more and more like we don't need to invoke extra-terrestrial reactions to explain abiogenesis. Most of the reactions unraveled so far seem to work just fine on the Earth's surface.


    Marke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    This isn't a new idea. It's just a variant of panspermia. It's not a particularly wild or controversial notion, but as we learn more about what's possible on Earth, it's looking more and more like we don't need to invoke extra-terrestrial reactions to explain abiogenesis. Most of the reactions unraveled so far seem to work just fine on the Earth's surface.
    I am curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that life emerges from chemicals since chemistry is closed under chemical operations.

    Further, the process of photosynthesis requires that the plant assemble a material that is capable of implementing the photoelectric effect.

    As I am sure you know, electricity is needed to decompose water into H and O.

    this decomposition of course is needed so the plant can construct carbohydrates which are energy storage units because of their covalent bond.

    Finally, in order for the plant to be able to take advantage of the photoelectric effect, it must operate at the pico-second level.

    Now, by any stretch, this is a factory with the output objective the carbohydrate/covalent bond.

    Chemicals however, do not emerge into factories with objective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    As I am sure you know, electricity is needed to decompose water into H and O.
    In the same way that electricity is needed to produce oxygen radicals in the ozone layer?

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Chemicals however, do not emerge into factories with objective.
    Interestingly, it's looking increasingly like they do.

    TECHNICIAN Jim McIver peers round from the back of a large black rig, his face half obscured by a cascade of wires. On the bench top in front of him, a network of tubes supplies a series of small reaction flasks with a mysterious bubbling fluid. McIver lifts his hands to make an adjustment, revealing fingertips singed by hours of soldering.

    It is a scene that fits the cinematic cliché of the mad scientist's laboratory, but this is no crazed loner's den. We are in the chemistry department of the University of Glasgow, UK, and Lee Cronin, McIver's energetic boss, is far from a sinister Victor Frankenstein figure. That said, he has a superficially similar goal. With a string of high-profile results already under his belt, he is about to flick the switch on his most ambitious experiment yet: to evolve the chemical complexity required for life in just 5000 hours of lab time.

    If the experiment succeeds, it could go a long way to answering some perennially fascinating questions. What exactly is life? What does it take for inanimate matter to start doing the sort of things life does: to replicate, compete for resources and evolve? Is such behaviour possible only with the carbon-based organic chemistry that powers us and the living world we inhabit? In less than seven months, we might have some new answers.

    Cronin is by no means the first chemist to be fascinated by the idea of re-enacting the processes that got life started. Perhaps most famously, in 1952 Stanley Miller and Harold Urey of the University of Chicago sparked electrical discharges through a brew of water vapour, hydrogen, methane and ammonia to mimic the turbulent atmospheric conditions of the early Earth. Within days, they were finding that organic molecules appeared in the mix, including some small amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins essential for life (Science, vol 117, p 528).

    Though influential, that work is now generally seen to be a little simplistic. "They made some amino acids, it was exciting," says Mike Russell, who investigates the underpinnings of life at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. But he points out that life quite possibly first poked its head above the parapet somewhere where conditions were quite different, for instance in hydrothermal vents deep under the sea. What's more, neither Miller and Urey nor more recent experimenters managed to make anything beyond a few simple and distinctly lifeless amino acids. Attempts to meld these amino acids into sophisticated proteins, or to create long, complex molecules such as DNA and RNA - the sort of components that underlie even the simplest single-celled life forms - just result in a tarry mess.
    Bootstrapping evolution

    That, says Cronin, points to a fundamental problem: "The complexity even of simple life cannot spring out of nothing." So he reasons that a series of simpler chemical levels capable of autonomous evolution must have existed before. But what?

    There have plenty of suggestions as to the nature of these missing links on Earth, notably RNA-based organisms or mineral-based life that fed on hot rocks. But given the lack of hard evidence, Cronin thinks such proposals are the wrong tack. "I can't do an experiment to tell me definitely where life on Earth came from," he says. "There I'm as stuck as theologians and philosophers." Rather than fixating on recreating life as it popped up on Earth, he wants to coax lifeless inorganic matter to do lifelike things. If he succeeds, that will begin to tell us something about the minimum chemical infrastructure needed for a system capable of autonomous evolution to emerge - on Earth or anywhere else.

    "Demonstrating that simple inorganic material is capable of evolving in order to survive in changing environments would be a major discovery," says Craig Richmond, the postdoc in charge of the 5000 hours experiment. "It could be classed as a new inorganic life form," he claims - though he acknowledges that this depends on exactly what it means to describe something as being "alive" (see "Testing life").

    To guide their quest, Cronin and his team have identified three basic characteristics that a chemical system capable of autonomous evolution is likely to need. First, there must be a "library" of related molecules whose structures represent encoded information that can be transferred between generations. Second, these molecules must support a metabolism, a set of chemical reactions that produces useful energy. Third, the molecules must be able to form enclosed spaces where this metabolism can proceed undisturbed.

    Life as we know it has all those things. But to prove their point, Cronin and co have plumped for something as far away from anything in nature's bio-construction kit as you could imagine: metal-oxide assemblies centred on atoms of metals such as tungsten, molybdenum or vanadium.

    They may seem an odd choice, yet these metal oxide building blocks tick all the boxes for evolutionary potential. When fed into reaction flasks in which their concentration and the acidity of the environment can be varied, they assemble themselves into a family of complex metal-oxide structures known as polyoxometalates. These can in turn act as templates for the formation of other structures. It doesn't take too big a leap of imagination to see the parallel with the way DNA and RNA act as templates for amino acids, which in turn build into proteins.

    Last year, Cronin and his colleagues exploited this self-assembling ability to fashion one of the largest inorganic molecules yet synthesised: a huge metal-oxide wheel containing 150 molybdenum atoms that measured 3.5 nanometres across - as big as a protein molecule (Science, vol 327, p 72). And the resemblance to the molecules of life doesn't stop with mere size. Electrons skittering through the polyoxometalate structures can promote a wide range of reduction and oxidation reactions, just as enzyme proteins catalyse similar reactions in biological contexts. In the right environment, the polyoxometalates even produce closed structures in the shape of bubbles, tubes and bubbles within bubbles reminiscent of the membranes that enclose biological cells.

    So it looks a bit like life - but is that enough to make it act like life? That is what the 5000 hours experiment will find out. The reaction rig will randomly flow the self-templating, shape-shifting, membrane-making metal-oxide blocks from flask to flask, together with any larger molecules they make. As they flow, acidities, concentrations and other parameters will be constantly varied. The idea is that the competition for limited resources will see certain forms of cluster - those that are chemically most adaptable or best suited to their environment - winning out over others in the fight for survival. Eventually, only these "fittest" clusters will self-replicate, transferring their structural information to further generations of similar clusters.

    Cronin and Richmond will be looking for the formation of increasingly sophisticated structures at each stage of the experiment. If that is what they find, it would go some way to showing that much of what we see as defining life - competition for resources, natural selection and survival of the fittest - are not unique to the carbon-based life we know, but the result of far more general chemical principles. "It is not just about the selfish gene - it is about selfish matter," says Cronin.

    Stripped down to its barest essentials, life can be seen as a struggle against thermodynamics and its drive towards ever more featureless uniformity, Cronin observes. There seems to be no reason why the fight against that uniformity should be confined to carbon-based chemistry. "I don't think for a second that on planet Earth molybdenum oxide was ever alive," Cronin says. Elsewhere, though, given the right chemical environment - who knows?

    So how much can we expect from Cronin's experiment? In particular, will it display the kind of rise in complexity that would indicate a living system? "I predict it'll get a little more complex but will finally be limited by the relative simplicity of the system," says David Deamer, a chemist investigating the origins of life at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

    Not even Cronin thinks we will see anything like the level of complexity found in evolving biological systems. But any sign that could be interpreted as autonomous evolution would be an exciting starting point for further investigation, he says. What might happen, for example, if you threw some simple organic molecules into the mix? Would the self-replicating metal-oxide clusters shepherd the organic molecules towards increasing complexity?

    Jim Cleaves, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington DC, welcomes blue-sky ideas like Cronin's, but in the end he thinks that new chemistries are unlikely to lead us to new biologies. There is more than mere chauvinism to most scientists' fixation on the organic chemistry that underlies life on Earth, Cleaves argues; quite simply, it works like no other kind of chemistry can. The main elements that go into making things like proteins and DNA - carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus - can react in an unparalleled variety of ways. Even carbon's close cousin silicon, often fingered as an alternative basis for life, forms far fewer compounds than carbon, and on a cosmic scale is much less prevalent.

    Similarly water, organic life's solvent, is far easier to come by than alternatives such as ammonia or ethane. "There just aren't any other cosmically abundant solvents that have the same properties," says Cleaves. That may mean that life as we know it on Earth is the universe's one big fluke. "It could be like trying to get a royal flush - it's just a hand that comes up every 10 million hands," he says. "It's really unlikely that scientists will ever do it in the laboratory."

    Will Cronin, Richmond and McIver prove such scepticism wrong in 5000 hours? The beauty is, we'll soon find out.
    Testing life

    In his lab at the University of Oxford, chemist Ben Davis has created an artificial cell that bears a striking resemblance to its biological counterparts. Within walls made of artificial versions of phospholipids, the main constituent of biological cell membranes, a varying pH triggers self-catalysing metabolic reactions that turn one small organic molecule, formaldehyde, into simple sugars, releasing energy on the way (Nature Chemistry, vol 1, p 379).

    That sounds rather lifelike, even though no life form we know of on Earth has that sort of metabolism. So is it life? Davis prefers not to use the word, not least because many of the possible definitions of what constitutes life are problematical to say the least. Several such definitions have been put forward: the ability to reproduce; the production of waste; or a metabolism, as in Davis's artificial cell. Yet each definition throws up complications.

    To break the impasse, in 2006 the UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council detailed a group of scientists to thrash out a definitive protocol for identifying life. The group included both Davis and Lee Cronin of the University of Glasgow (see main story).

    What they came up with contained elements of the old: that an artificial chemical cell should be self-replicating and possess some sort of contained metabolism. But it also contained a radically new element, inspired by the similarly vexed question of whether machines can think. In 1950, the mathematician Alan Turing developed a test for this: if a machine truly were intelligent, he said, then an intelligent interrogator, asking questions of both a machine and a human, would be unable to distinguish the two sets of answers. Similarly, Davis, Cronin and their colleagues argued, to be worthy of the title life an artificial chemical cell should be able to live with biological cells undetected as an impostor, and participate in the same processes as the natural cells (Nature Biotechnology, vol 24, p 1203).

    Davis's artificial cells pass this aspect of the test. He mixed them with a sample of a marine bacterium that luminesces when levels of certain chemicals secreted by the colony as a whole exceed a threshold. Products of the formaldehyde metabolism of the cells counted towards this "quorum sensing" system, causing the bacteria to light up.

    At the moment, the cells do not have the ability to replicate on their own, so do not fulfil all the requirements to qualify as life. It remains to be seen whether whatever ultimately emerges from Cronin's experiments will fare any better.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e-know-it.html
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    As I am sure you know, electricity is needed to decompose water into H and O.
    In the same way that electricity is needed to produce oxygen radicals in the ozone layer?

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Chemicals however, do not emerge into factories with objective.
    Interestingly, it's looking increasingly like they do.
    Really?

    Let's see the math equations of chemical emergence.

    I am sorry, but I am deal in conclusive information, like math.

    Flat earthers on the other hand, can believe anything for any reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Let's see the math equations of emergence.
    Let's not. Let's be scientific and do experiments and see what happens. And then repeat them experiments. And then repeat them some more.

    "Look, life emerged autonamously in this solution of metals!"
    "Nope, sorry, I don't understand the maths, so it didn't."

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I am sorry, but I am deal in conclusive information, like math.
    Mathematics descibes reality (to an extent), it doesn't define it. If you observe something new in reality, you change the maths; not the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Flat earthers on the other hand, can believe anything for any reason.
    That's a random comment to throw in?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Let's see the math equations of emergence.
    Let's not. Let's be scientific and do experiments and see what happens. And then repeat them experiments. And then repeat them some more.

    "Look, life emerged autonamously in this solution of metals!"
    "Nope, sorry, I don't understand the maths, so it didn't."

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I am sorry, but I am deal in conclusive information, like math.
    Mathematics descibes reality (to an extent), it doesn't define it. If you observe something new in reality, you change the maths; not the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Flat earthers on the other hand, can believe anything for any reason.
    That's a random comment to throw in?
    If math is not at the foundation of chemistry, then admit that.

    Once you see you are wrong, you and others like you must prove emergence from math.

    I am really good at math and you have 2 ways you can do that no way and no how. Math is an origination based science.

    So, those in chemistry that claim emergence have no logical basis for that conclusion.

    That implies the reasoning is religious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    If math is not at the foundation of chemistry, then admit that.
    Maths is fundamental to chemistry, yes. I would not, however, like to try and describe the motion of the molecules, entropy, temperature, bond enthalpy, etc. of a complicated system using maths. Especially over a period of hundreds or thousands of hours.

    So what is your point - that chemical systems can be too complicated for us to describe them mathematically? Or that such systems cannot exist, because only maths is real?

    I don't see what you're trying to say.

    To quote myself, are you taking the position of the second hypothetical person in this parody?

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    "Look, life emerged autonamously in this solution of metals!"
    "Nope, sorry, I don't understand the maths, so it didn't."
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    If math is not at the foundation of chemistry, then admit that.
    Maths is fundamental to chemistry, yes. I would not, however, like to try and describe the motion of the molecules, entropy, temperature, bond enthalpy, etc. of a complicated system using maths. Especially over a period of hundreds or thousands of hours.

    So what is your point - that chemical systems can be too complicated for us to describe them mathematically? Or that such systems cannot exist, because only maths is real?

    I don't see what you're trying to say.

    To quote myself, are you taking the position of the second hypothetical person in this parody?

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    "Look, life emerged autonamously in this solution of metals!"
    "Nope, sorry, I don't understand the maths, so it didn't."
    I will attempt to teach you.

    The reason you cannot describe all motions of molecules is the math is too complicated.

    But, flat earthers think just because something is complicated, then emergence is possible.

    There is no provision for any type of emergence undre math because it is based on ZFC set theory.

    So, in order for chemistry to deviate from math and inject a new logic, it would need to have some logical basis in which all humans can compare and interpret.

    However, there is no such new logic, chemistry is based on math and there is no provision for emergence under ZFC.

    Therefore, emergence logic is religious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Therefore, emergence logic is religious.
    How then do you account for the observation of emergent complexity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    in order for chemistry to deviate from math and inject a new logic, it would need to have some logical basis in which all humans can compare and interpret.
    Empiric?

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Therefore, emergence logic is religious.
    Erm, no. And is it not the case that you religiously believe that everything can be described and defined mathematically?

    Experimental data trumps theoretical data. That's just how science works.
    iainmacb likes this.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Therefore, emergence logic is religious.
    How then do you account for the observation of emergent complexity?
    I can't.

    Neither can evolution. I simply understand this fact.

    What you do not understand is emergence cannot be explained by science. Science operates by the scientific method which is reproducibility.

    Reproducibility is founded in more primary concepts in math and logic in the math function and modus ponens or material implication.

    Therefore, it is impossible for science to explain emergence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    in order for chemistry to deviate from math and inject a new logic, it would need to have some logical basis in which all humans can compare and interpret.
    Empiric?

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Therefore, emergence logic is religious.
    Erm, no. And is it not the case that you religiously believe that everything can be described and defined mathematically?

    Experimental data trumps theoretical data. That's just how science works.
    Err, prove the scientific method is logically equivalent to emergence.

    Let me know when you admit defeat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    it is impossible for science to explain emergence.
    Explain, or demonstrate? Demonstrating what happens in nature is exactly what science does. Natural laws are mere conjecture to relate occurences mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    prove the scientific method is logically equivalent to emergence.
    What for? What happens, happens - regardless of whether you can mathematically prove that it should have. Are you really suggesting that we ignore experimental data where the maths is too complicated?

    Whatever point you're trying to make, you're just looking retarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Experimental data trumps theoretical data. That's just how science works.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    it is impossible for science to explain emergence.
    Explain, or demonstrate? Demonstrating what happens in nature is exactly what science does. Natural laws are mere conjecture to relate occurences mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    prove the scientific method is logically equivalent to emergence.
    What for? What happens, happens - regardless of whether you can mathematically prove that it should have. Are you really suggesting that we ignore experimental data where the maths is too complicated?

    Whatever point you're trying to make, you're just looking retarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Experimental data trumps theoretical data. That's just how science works.
    Can you prove emergence can be proven by the scientific method?

    Show the math.

    that means you can prove one to many.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    it is impossible for science to explain emergence.
    Explain, or demonstrate? Demonstrating what happens in nature is exactly what science does. Natural laws are mere conjecture to relate occurences mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    prove the scientific method is logically equivalent to emergence.
    What for? What happens, happens - regardless of whether you can mathematically prove that it should have. Are you really suggesting that we ignore experimental data where the maths is too complicated?

    Whatever point you're trying to make, you're just looking retarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Experimental data trumps theoretical data. That's just how science works.
    Can you prove emergence can be proven by the scientific method?

    Show the math.

    that means you can prove one to many.
    Show me that you are not totally clueless about that your asking and tell us what scientific fields of study are the relevant ones to the emergence of life and early life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    it is impossible for science to explain emergence.
    Explain, or demonstrate? Demonstrating what happens in nature is exactly what science does. Natural laws are mere conjecture to relate occurences mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    prove the scientific method is logically equivalent to emergence.
    What for? What happens, happens - regardless of whether you can mathematically prove that it should have. Are you really suggesting that we ignore experimental data where the maths is too complicated?

    Whatever point you're trying to make, you're just looking retarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Experimental data trumps theoretical data. That's just how science works.
    Can you prove emergence can be proven by the scientific method?

    Show the math.

    that means you can prove one to many.
    Show me that you are not totally clueless about that your asking and tell us what scientific fields of study are the relevant ones to the emergence of life and early life.

    Please restate your question.

    I do not understand what you are asking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Can you prove
    No. 'Proof' is a word that can never really be used in science.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Show the math.
    What maths? We're talking about empirical data, aren't we? Mathematical models generally follow the data that defines them, not the other way around.

    Why are you obsessed with the notion that all science must be predicted by a mathematical proof? How could we even know what proof to look for before we run the experiment and know the result?

    A mathematical proof, based on established natural laws, can only correctly predict a result if all natural laws have been identified and described. If this is what you're suggesting, then you're being religiously antiscientific. How would we have identified any natural laws without collecting data to start with?

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Experimental data trumps theoretical data. That's just how science works.



    Now, getting back to the question you keep asking:

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Can you prove emergence can be proven by the scientific method?
    Why should I need to? I don't need to prove that it is possible for something to be possible, when I can watch it happening. It's the most simple of logic. Similarly I can't provide you with a mathematical proof that it is possible for me to post in forums, and yet here we are.

    What exactly is it you fail to understand?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    it is impossible for science to explain emergence.
    Explain, or demonstrate? Demonstrating what happens in nature is exactly what science does. Natural laws are mere conjecture to relate occurences mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    prove the scientific method is logically equivalent to emergence.
    What for? What happens, happens - regardless of whether you can mathematically prove that it should have. Are you really suggesting that we ignore experimental data where the maths is too complicated?

    Whatever point you're trying to make, you're just looking retarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Experimental data trumps theoretical data. That's just how science works.
    Can you prove emergence can be proven by the scientific method?

    Show the math.

    that means you can prove one to many.
    Show me that you are not totally clueless about that your asking and tell us what scientific fields of study are the relevant ones to the emergence of life and early life.

    Please restate your question.

    I do not understand what you are asking.
    Its an easy question. Please tell us what scientific fields are most directly involved in the research and exploration of the emergence and early life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Therefore, emergence logic is religious.
    How then do you account for the observation of emergent complexity?
    I can't.
    Neither can evolution.
    Evolution is a process. Why would you expect such a process to explain a sub-process that was partially responsible for it? Such an expectation suggests either a lack of relevant education, serious absence of logical thinking, sub-standard intelligence, deliberate trolling, or some combination of these.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    What you do not understand is emergence cannot be explained by science. Science operates by the scientific method which is reproducibility.
    To take a single example, more complex peptides have emerged through a variety of processes, from suites of amino acids. Such observations are reproducible and have been reproduced. This single example, of scientific reproduction of emergent complexity, wholly invalidates your claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    it is impossible for science to explain emergence.
    Explain, or demonstrate? Demonstrating what happens in nature is exactly what science does. Natural laws are mere conjecture to relate occurences mathematically.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    prove the scientific method is logically equivalent to emergence.
    What for? What happens, happens - regardless of whether you can mathematically prove that it should have. Are you really suggesting that we ignore experimental data where the maths is too complicated?

    Whatever point you're trying to make, you're just looking retarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Experimental data trumps theoretical data. That's just how science works.
    Can you prove emergence can be proven by the scientific method?

    Show the math.

    that means you can prove one to many.
    Show me that you are not totally clueless about that your asking and tell us what scientific fields of study are the relevant ones to the emergence of life and early life.

    Please restate your question.

    I do not understand what you are asking.
    Its an easy question. Please tell us what scientific fields are most directly involved in the research and exploration of the emergence and early life.
    I just wanted to understand your question.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_evolution


    Now, I would like you to claim life did not emerge from chemicals. If you do this, you will need to explain the origins of life that is not based on the theory of evolution.

    If you claim life directly evolved from chemicals, I would like you to provide the math proof that life emerges from chemical operations when chemistry is closed under chemical operations. I want to see this.



    I like either path you take.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Therefore, emergence logic is religious.
    How then do you account for the observation of emergent complexity?
    I can't.
    Neither can evolution.
    Evolution is a process. Why would you expect such a process to explain a sub-process that was partially responsible for it? Such an expectation suggests either a lack of relevant education, serious absence of logical thinking, sub-standard intelligence, deliberate trolling, or some combination of these.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    What you do not understand is emergence cannot be explained by science. Science operates by the scientific method which is reproducibility.
    To take a single example, more complex peptides have emerged through a variety of processes, from suites of amino acids. Such observations are reproducible and have been reproduced. This single example, of scientific reproduction of emergent complexity, wholly invalidates your claim.
    Let me help you. Amino acids are not cells.

    If you wre able to construct a complete dna, it would be real nice if a cell were present no?

    Can you explain precisely what you will do with a colletion of amino acids without a cell?

    You have failed with the chicken and egg fallacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Its an easy question. Please tell us what scientific fields are most directly involved in the research and exploration of the emergence and early life.
    I just wanted to understand your question.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_evolution
    Except, your answer is wrong. It's really too bad that a bunch of LOLs isn't enough to support ones point, as that's essentially all you have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Its an easy question. Please tell us what scientific fields are most directly involved in the research and exploration of the emergence and early life.
    I just wanted to understand your question.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_evolution
    Except, your answer is wrong. It's really too bad that a bunch of LOLs isn't enough to support ones point, as that's essentially all you have.
    Talk is cheap.

    Let's watch you get specific.
    I am not sure you you make other than a very good coward.

    Let's see your math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Two points

    1 you did not answer my question

    2 the link you gave is to a totally unrelated field of evolutionary study and so fails as an answer to my question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Let me help you. Amino acids are not cells.
    You have decalred that emergence of complexity is not possible. I have demonstrated that it is.

    It may surprise you to learn that to achieve the complexity of a cell is not a simple process, but involves multiple instances of emergent complexity. I have given you a single example of this.

    You had stated:
    What you do not understand is emergence cannot be explained by science. Science operates by the scientific method which is reproducibility.
    I have given a single example of how emergent complexity can be reproduced at will in a variety of ways. Your argument is flawed. Your brain is addled. Your contribution to humanity appears to be negative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Two points

    1 you did not answer my question

    2 the link you gave is to a totally unrelated field of evolutionary study and so fails as an answer to my question.
    The context of my post was emergence out of chemistry in a set of laws in which chemical operations are closed under chemistry.

    I can see you do not understand what that means.
    If you take a chemical plus a chemical, you get a chemical. That is closure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Let me help you. Amino acids are not cells.
    You have decalred that emergence of complexity is not possible. I have demonstrated that it is.

    It may surprise you to learn that to achieve the complexity of a cell is not a simple process, but involves multiple instances of emergent complexity. I have given you a single example of this.

    You had stated:
    What you do not understand is emergence cannot be explained by science. Science operates by the scientific method which is reproducibility.
    I have given a single example of how emergent complexity can be reproduced at will in a variety of ways. Your argument is flawed. Your brain is addled. Your contribution to humanity appears to be negative.
    You have achieved 0.

    I will try to teach you. All science is founded on math and math is founded on set theory, ZFC in particular.

    Undre the rules of ZFC, there is no such thing as emergence.

    So, you do no have a mathematical basis for your assertions. Now, if you think you have a mathematical basis, present so that I may correct you.

    Otherwise, all you have is some philosophical opinion.

    And, to me your philosophy is extremely similar to God saying let there be light, and then there was light.

    You are claiming, let there be life and there was life. You have absolutely 0 math or logic to substantiate your baseless claims.

    Now, are you able to prove the emergence of life from chemicals yes or no.

    Hint: No.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    The context of my post was emergence out of chemistry in a set of laws in which chemical operations are closed under chemistry.
    I'm going to try and decipher this sentance. Are you trying to say that you were saying it's not possible for something to become non-chemical, assuming it always has to be chemical in nature? Well, fuck me, you're right.

    Making an assumption to prove the same assertion is circular logic. And as we all know, circular logic works, because...

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    If you take a chemical plus a chemical, you get a chemical. That is closure.
    Why can cells not be descibed as chemical in nature? They are a number of chemicals reacting in a certain way, that we choose to call 'living'.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    The context of my post was emergence out of chemistry in a set of laws in which chemical operations are closed under chemistry.
    I'm going to try and decipher this sentance. Are you trying to say that you were saying it's not possible for something to become non-chemical, assuming it always has to be chemical in nature? Well, fuck me, you're right.

    Making an assumption to prove the same assertion is circular logic. And as we all know, circular logic works, because...

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    If you take a chemical plus a chemical, you get a chemical. That is closure.
    Why can cells not be descibed as chemical in nature? They are a number of chemicals reacting in a certain way, that we choose to call 'living'.
    Dumbass, a chemical exists in the periodic table based on chemical properties and so do molecules.

    Now, are you claiming you know specifically how to escape this?

    Make your failed case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    who is the dumbass?

    My guess is you'd lose...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    The context of my post was emergence out of chemistry in a set of laws in which chemical operations are closed under chemistry.
    I'm going to try and decipher this sentance. Are you trying to say that you were saying it's not possible for something to become non-chemical, assuming it always has to be chemical in nature? Well, fuck me, you're right.

    Making an assumption to prove the same assertion is circular logic. And as we all know, circular logic works, because...

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    If you take a chemical plus a chemical, you get a chemical. That is closure.
    Why can cells not be descibed as chemical in nature? They are a number of chemicals reacting in a certain way, that we choose to call 'living'.
    Dumbass, a chemical exists in the periodic table based on chemical properties and so do molecules.

    Now, are you claiming you know specifically how to escape this?

    Make your failed case.
    No chemicals are not found on the periodic table, elements are found on the periodic table.

    Elements make up chemicals.

    Chemicals make up molecules.

    carbon/oxygen based chemicals make up organic molecules.

    Organic molecules make up life.

    where is the magic movement off the periodic table that you are implying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    and by the way, what we are currently discussing is abiogenisis, and not emergent evolution, which happens to life forms after they already exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    and by the way, what we are currently discussing is abiogenisis, and not emergent evolution, which happens to life forms after they already exist.
    OK, in order to distinguish abiogenisis and emergence, then you will need to prove a mathematical connection between chemistry and life.

    But, that is the whole point I have been discussing.

    So, you are having trouble keeping up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    and by the way, what we are currently discussing is abiogenisis, and not emergent evolution, which happens to life forms after they already exist.
    OK, in order to distinguish abiogenisis and emergence, then you will need to prove a mathematical connection between chemistry and life.

    But, that is the whole point I have been discussing.

    So, you are having trouble keeping up.
    No chemicals are not found on the periodic table, elements are found on the periodic table.

    Elements make up chemicals.

    Chemicals make up molecules.

    carbon/oxygen based chemicals make up organic molecules.

    Organic molecules make up life.

    where is the magic movement off the periodic table that you are implying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    and by the way, what we are currently discussing is abiogenisis, and not emergent evolution, which happens to life forms after they already exist.
    OK, in order to distinguish abiogenisis and emergence, then you will need to prove a mathematical connection between chemistry and life.

    But, that is the whole point I have been discussing.

    So, you are having trouble keeping up.
    No chemicals are not found on the periodic table, elements are found on the periodic table.

    Elements make up chemicals.

    Chemicals make up molecules.

    carbon/oxygen based chemicals make up organic molecules.

    Organic molecules make up life.

    where is the magic movement off the periodic table that you are implying.
    Wow, such detail.

    I assumed you were stupid and used "chemicals" for "elements".

    Now that you are smart, teach and train us how you are going to mathematically combine "elements" into life.

    I will wait for this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    and by the way, what we are currently discussing is abiogenisis, and not emergent evolution, which happens to life forms after they already exist.
    OK, in order to distinguish abiogenisis and emergence, then you will need to prove a mathematical connection between chemistry and life.

    But, that is the whole point I have been discussing.

    So, you are having trouble keeping up.
    No chemicals are not found on the periodic table, elements are found on the periodic table.

    Elements make up chemicals.

    Chemicals make up molecules.

    carbon/oxygen based chemicals make up organic molecules.

    Organic molecules make up life.

    where is the magic movement off the periodic table that you are implying.
    Wow, such detail.

    I assumed you were stupid and used "chemicals" for "elements".

    Now that you are smart, teach and train us how you are going to mathematically combine "elements" into life.

    I will wait for this.
    I am still waiting for you to answer to my question. Why is this not considered possible by you.

    Btw its interesting how quickly you went for personal jabs at me, considering I have been very polite so far.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Dumbass, a chemical exists in the periodic table based on chemical properties and so do molecules.

    Now, are you claiming you know specifically how to escape this?

    Make your failed case.
    Why are we moving from the stupid to the clinically insane? Where have you got this ridiculous notion that life somehow transcends the physical world? Is it a religious thing, or just your own insanity briefly surfacing to reassure you that everyone else is insane? Would a purely chemical form of life be possible according to your ideas? Could a purely chemical life form emerge from inorganic molecules under certain conditions? Why could this not be the case with the life we see around us today? What exactly makes living cells act differently to other chemical systems?

    Your case was that complexity cannot arise from a chemical system. I, and others, have shown you that this is not the case, and have shown you examples of complexity emerging. You went on to ignore this completely, and decide that I am trying to make some ludicrous case that violates the laws of physics that exist only in your mind, whereas all I have actually done is explain and demonstrate science that has been accepted for decades.

    The short version of this rant is as follows; start making sense, or piss off.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    and by the way, what we are currently discussing is abiogenisis, and not emergent evolution, which happens to life forms after they already exist.
    OK, in order to distinguish abiogenisis and emergence, then you will need to prove a mathematical connection between chemistry and life.

    But, that is the whole point I have been discussing.

    So, you are having trouble keeping up.
    No chemicals are not found on the periodic table, elements are found on the periodic table.

    Elements make up chemicals.

    Chemicals make up molecules.

    carbon/oxygen based chemicals make up organic molecules.

    Organic molecules make up life.

    where is the magic movement off the periodic table that you are implying.
    Wow, such detail.

    I assumed you were stupid and used "chemicals" for "elements".

    Now that you are smart, teach and train us how you are going to mathematically combine "elements" into life.

    I will wait for this.
    I am still waiting for you to answer to my question. Why is this not considered possible by you.

    Btw its interesting how quickly you went for personal jabs at me, considering I have been very polite so far.
    I am sorry if you considered intellectual challenges a jobs. To me, that indicates weakness.

    Now, to emergence as logic.

    1) Science claims it is based on mathematics.
    2) Mathematics nor logic contains emergence.


    So, you are left with arguments you cannot prove. If you can prove this emergence, then have at it.

    You will fail.

    Now, let's see where you are. You have a creation myth that you cannot prove but you still pray to it or believe in anyway.

    Exactly how do you separate your beliefs from religious beliefs?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Dumbass, a chemical exists in the periodic table based on chemical properties and so do molecules.

    Now, are you claiming you know specifically how to escape this?

    Make your failed case.
    Why are we moving from the stupid to the clinically insane? Where have you got this ridiculous notion that life somehow transcends the physical world? Is it a religious thing, or just your own insanity briefly surfacing to reassure you that everyone else is insane? Would a purely chemical form of life be possible according to your ideas? Could a purely chemical life form emerge from inorganic molecules under certain conditions? Why could this not be the case with the life we see around us today? What exactly makes living cells act differently to other chemical systems?

    Your case was that complexity cannot arise from a chemical system. I, and others, have shown you that this is not the case, and have shown you examples of complexity emerging. You went on to ignore this completely, and decide that I am trying to make some ludicrous case that violates the laws of physics that exist only in your mind, whereas all I have actually done is explain and demonstrate science that has been accepted for decades.

    The short version of this rant is as follows; start making sense, or piss off.
    See the bold above.

    I said, chemical operations are closed under the chemical operator.

    Now, to prove your failed and worthless case, you will need to prove mathematically that if you add 1 to a number n times, then you get a dog and not a number.

    you see, chemistry is founded on math. Integers are closed under the integer operations of + and * just like chemicals operations are.

    What is it like for you to argue such stupidity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    This isn't a new idea. It's just a variant of panspermia. It's not a particularly wild or controversial notion, but as we learn more about what's possible on Earth, it's looking more and more like we don't need to invoke extra-terrestrial reactions to explain abiogenesis. Most of the reactions unraveled so far seem to work just fine on the Earth's surface.
    I am curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that life emerges from chemicals since chemistry is closed under chemical operations.
    Life doesn't emerge from chemical reactions. Life is chemical reactions. No 'emergence' is needed, only self-replication and variation over time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Now, to prove your failed and worthless case, you will need to prove mathematically that if you add 1 to a number n times, then you get a dog and not a number.
    What a load of bollocks. You're misrepresenting the situation completely, and we don't need to prove mathematically what we can demonstrate empirically in order to ascertain that it has happened. We know it happened because it happened, not because we invented some maths.

    Maths is devised to explain experimental results, not the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    you see, chemistry is founded on math.
    No, it is not. It is founded on hundreds of years of experimentation, resulting in repeatable, sound results. These results are then used to estimate mathematical models for how the individual components work within the system.

    What is the mathematical proof for dogs?







    Aaaaaaand, as I keep saying, living things are chemical in nature! Life does not transcend chemistry unless you are batshit insane, a fundamentalist religionist, or thinking philosophically. If you're claiming that living systems transcend the non-living systems they form from, then that's your stupid fucking claim, so support it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    This isn't a new idea. It's just a variant of panspermia. It's not a particularly wild or controversial notion, but as we learn more about what's possible on Earth, it's looking more and more like we don't need to invoke extra-terrestrial reactions to explain abiogenesis. Most of the reactions unraveled so far seem to work just fine on the Earth's surface.
    I am curious as to how you arrive at the conclusion that life emerges from chemicals since chemistry is closed under chemical operations.
    Life doesn't emerge from chemical reactions. Life is chemical reactions. No 'emergence' is needed, only self-replication and variation over time.
    I thought I could get you out here.


    Self-replication is insufficient since we also need the "species" to inherit base energy transformation to carbohydrates.

    If you check the latest tree, those "species" that use the lava vents are decedents of the photo electric species.

    So, we are left with the original problem I posed in this thread.

    How exactly are you going to "emerge" molecules to operate at the pico-second level to decompose water into H and O?

    Show me the math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    1) Science claims it is based on mathematics.
    Negatory. Mathematics is used in science to quantify effects, and measure results. Science based on mathematics is not based on reality, and so is not science at all - rather, it is pure mathematics.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    2) Mathematics nor logic contains emergence.
    A complete non-sequitur, even ignoring the fact that your first assertion was incorrect. (Also, algorithms are used that "evolve" data to create complex and elegant equations to represent data, thus allowing complexity to arise from data which showed no obvious pattern to it before).

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    You will fail.
    Only because your perception of reality is flawed. You seem to think that if it is mathematical, it is real and if it is not, then it is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Exactly how do you separate your beliefs from religious beliefs?
    Empiric. How about you? Where does your faith in your own bullshit mathematics come from?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Now, to prove your failed and worthless case, you will need to prove mathematically that if you add 1 to a number n times, then you get a dog and not a number.
    What a load of bollocks. You're misrepresenting the situation completely, and we don't need to prove mathematically what we can demonstrate empirically in order to ascertain that it has happened. We know it happened because it happened, not because we invented some maths.

    Maths is devised to explain experimental results, not the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    you see, chemistry is founded on math.
    No, it is not. It is founded on hundreds of years of experimentation, resulting in repeatable, sound results. These results are then used to estimate mathematical models for how the individual components work within the system.

    What is the mathematical proof for dogs?







    Aaaaaaand, as I keep saying, living things are chemical in nature! Life does not transcend chemistry unless you are batshit insane, a fundamentalist religionist, or thinking philosophically. If you're claiming that living systems transcend the non-living systems they form from, then that's your stupid fucking claim, so support it.
    It is all settled then.

    Prove how you construct a cell without a DNA.

    Remember, you must "boot up" your logic from math fundamentals.

    Or, explain how you will use a naked DNA without a cell and create a cell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    I am still waiting for you to answer to my question. Why is this not considered possible by you.

    Btw its interesting how quickly you went for personal jabs at me, considering I have been very polite so far.
    I am sorry if you considered intellectual challenges a jobs. To me, that indicates weakness.

    Now, to emergence as logic.

    1) Science claims it is based on mathematics.
    2) Mathematics nor logic contains emergence.


    So, you are left with arguments you cannot prove. If you can prove this emergence, then have at it.

    You will fail.

    Now, let's see where you are. You have a creation myth that you cannot prove but you still pray to it or believe in anyway.

    Exactly how do you separate your beliefs from religious beliefs?
    I suggest you try using a different translator, as I clearly wrote "jAbs" and not "jObs" as you seem to think I wrote. This being the case the rest of your personal attack on me is moot.

    Define emergence as you are using in this situation. Use your on words and not a link to another site.. This will give the participants in the tread a clear idea is to what exactly you are trying to communicate.


    edited to fix quote markup
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Re: ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    How exactly are you going to "emerge" molecules to operate at the pico-second level to decompose water into H and O?
    Exactly the same way any other new chemical is introduced into a system - through a series of chemical interactions. What makes this example any less possible than wood burning when it gets too hot?

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Show me the math.
    Show me the math that proves you exist. Otherwise, you don't, and you lose the argument.*


    *Parody of your attitude to empirical evidence.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    1) Science claims it is based on mathematics.
    Negatory. Mathematics is used in science to quantify effects, and measure results. Science based on mathematics is not based on reality, and so is not science at all - rather, it is pure mathematics.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    2) Mathematics nor logic contains emergence.
    A complete non-sequitur, even ignoring the fact that your first assertion was incorrect. (Also, algorithms are used that "evolve" data to create complex and elegant equations to represent data, thus allowing complexity to arise from data which showed no obvious pattern to it before).

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    You will fail.
    Only because your perception of reality is flawed. You seem to think that if it is mathematical, it is real and if it is not, then it is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Exactly how do you separate your beliefs from religious beliefs?
    Empiric. How about you? Where does your faith in your own bullshit mathematics come from?
    OK, maybe you are correct.

    Why don't you show everyone how you convert modus ponens "math" into emergenc e.

    I want to see that.

    Further, I want to see how you convert an algorithm into emergence.

    See Church's thesis in recursion theory.

    That means you must prove all recursive function are emergent.

    Good luck with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Why are you focusing on an aside, and not my whole post? I put that in brackets because it wasn't strictly part of my argument, but was an interesting aside that you might wish to research.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    I am still waiting for you to answer to my question. Why is this not considered possible by you.

    Btw its interesting how quickly you went for personal jabs at me, considering I have been very polite so far.
    I am sorry if you considered intellectual challenges a jobs. To me, that indicates weakness.

    Now, to emergence as logic.

    1) Science claims it is based on mathematics.
    2) Mathematics nor logic contains emergence.


    So, you are left with arguments you cannot prove. If you can prove this emergence, then have at it.

    You will fail.

    Now, let's see where you are. You have a creation myth that you cannot prove but you still pray to it or believe in anyway.

    Exactly how do you separate your beliefs from religious beliefs?
    I suggest you try using a different translator, as I clearly wrote "jAbs" and not "jObs" as you seem to think I wrote. This being the case the rest of your personal attack on me is moot.

    Define emergence as you are using in this situation. Use your on words and not a link to another site.. This will give the participants in the tread a clear idea is to what exactly you are trying to communicate.


    edited to fix quote markup
    See bold above.

    Fair enough.

    Emergence means mathematical logic and ZFC set theory (math) cannot explain the hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Why are you focusing on an aside, and not my whole post? I put that in brackets because it wasn't strictly part of my argument, but was an interesting aside that you might wish to research.
    I put that as you whole argument because that is what it is.

    It might be hard when you are immersed in your religion to understand it.

    Now, if I am off task, present your case and I will teach you where you are wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Emergence means mathematical logic and ZFC set theory (math) cannot explain the hypothesis.
    So you want us to prove mathematically, something that cannot be proved mathematically?


    ...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    I am still waiting for you to answer to my question. Why is this not considered possible by you.

    Btw its interesting how quickly you went for personal jabs at me, considering I have been very polite so far.
    I am sorry if you considered intellectual challenges a jobs. To me, that indicates weakness.

    Now, to emergence as logic.

    1) Science claims it is based on mathematics.
    2) Mathematics nor logic contains emergence.


    So, you are left with arguments you cannot prove. If you can prove this emergence, then have at it.

    You will fail.

    Now, let's see where you are. You have a creation myth that you cannot prove but you still pray to it or believe in anyway.

    Exactly how do you separate your beliefs from religious beliefs?
    I suggest you try using a different translator, as I clearly wrote "jAbs" and not "jObs" as you seem to think I wrote. This being the case the rest of your personal attack on me is moot.

    Define emergence as you are using in this situation. Use your on words and not a link to another site.. This will give the participants in the tread a clear idea is to what exactly you are trying to communicate.


    edited to fix quote markup
    See bold above.

    Fair enough.

    Emergence means mathematical logic and ZFC set theory (math) cannot explain the hypothesis.
    how does Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory relate to this discussion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Why are you focusing on an aside, and not my whole post? I put that in brackets because it wasn't strictly part of my argument, but was an interesting aside that you might wish to research.
    I put that as you whole argument because that is what it is.
    And conveniently ignore the part of my post where I challenged your assertions? You're nothing more than a religionist.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    present your case
    What case? I thought you were presenting how the emergence of life is impossible? I have no case to make.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    I can appreciate now how the physicists see Chinglu when he writes about their field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I can appreciate now how the physicists see Chinglu when he writes about their field.

    Let's remember, I proved ∂t'/∂t < 0 for a special case.

    Note they all ran from this mathematical fact.

    Also, I have challenged them to provide the t'A and t'B when at rest from the train frame. I provided said solution.

    Again, no takers.

    So, I think you have it about right.

    Now, do you have a mathematical basis for your creation myth as I have a mathematical basis for my refutation of SR?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    I am still waiting for you to answer to my question. Why is this not considered possible by you.

    Btw its interesting how quickly you went for personal jabs at me, considering I have been very polite so far.
    I am sorry if you considered intellectual challenges a jobs. To me, that indicates weakness.

    Now, to emergence as logic.

    1) Science claims it is based on mathematics.
    2) Mathematics nor logic contains emergence.


    So, you are left with arguments you cannot prove. If you can prove this emergence, then have at it.

    You will fail.

    Now, let's see where you are. You have a creation myth that you cannot prove but you still pray to it or believe in anyway.

    Exactly how do you separate your beliefs from religious beliefs?
    I suggest you try using a different translator, as I clearly wrote "jAbs" and not "jObs" as you seem to think I wrote. This being the case the rest of your personal attack on me is moot.

    Define emergence as you are using in this situation. Use your on words and not a link to another site.. This will give the participants in the tread a clear idea is to what exactly you are trying to communicate.


    edited to fix quote markup
    See bold above.

    Fair enough.

    Emergence means mathematical logic and ZFC set theory (math) cannot explain the hypothesis.
    how does Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory relate to this discussion?
    It provides the foundations of math and thus the foundation of all science based on math.

    Now, if a science discipline does not care to adhere to math, it must confess that it does not use math or logic for its conclusions.

    Then, average users may consider whether they choose to listen to pure opinion without a math basis since that is most of the religion of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Why are you focusing on an aside, and not my whole post? I put that in brackets because it wasn't strictly part of my argument, but was an interesting aside that you might wish to research.
    I put that as you whole argument because that is what it is.
    And conveniently ignore the part of my post where I challenged your assertions? You're nothing more than a religionist.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    present your case
    What case? I thought you were presenting how the emergence of life is impossible? I have no case to make.
    I did not present any argument in which the emergence of life is impossible.

    Thanks for confessing you believe in the emergence of life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Note they all ran from this mathematical fact.

    Also, I have challenged them to provide the t'A and t'B when at rest from the train frame. I provided said solution.

    Again, no takers.
    From what I could see, from my limited perspective, there were plenty of takers. 17 pages, to date. That doesn't look much like you were ignored or run from. You just kept repeating your position to the people who refuted you and ignored their arguments until they got bored and left.

    You want to call that a victory?

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu

    Now, do you have a mathematical basis for your creation myth as I have a mathematical basis for my refutation of SR?
    No. We start with observation, we use math as a tool to model our observations. If it can be observed, measured, quantified and qualified and done so reproducibly, then I can use mathematics as a tool to model it, and perhaps to derive new predictions. Mathematics can describe the possible and the impossible, and there are many more examples of the latter than the former. To start with the mathematics would therefore be both unscientific and quite idiotic.

    A question for you Chinglu: how do you believe life originated from non-life?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu

    It provides the foundations of math and thus the foundation of all science based on math.

    Now, if a science discipline does not care to adhere to math, it must confess that it does not use math or logic for its conclusions.

    Then, average users may consider whether they choose to listen to pure opinion without a math basis since that is most of the religion of science.
    No it does not provide the basis for all science in the way you are suggesting. What explicitly (eg specific details) prevents organic molecules in a organic rich liquid bath from becoming more complex?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Note they all ran from this mathematical fact.

    Also, I have challenged them to provide the t'A and t'B when at rest from the train frame. I provided said solution.

    Again, no takers.
    From what I could see, from my limited perspective, there were plenty of takers. You just kept repeating your position to them and ignoring their arguments until they got bored and left.


    BS, these humans love to hammer others. they left because they were outmatched.

    Now, please consult them and join up with them since SR is a theory based on math.

    Then all will be able to prove where I am wrong and everyone will laugh.

    Good luck.


    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu

    Now, do you have a mathematical basis for your creation myth as I have a mathematical basis for my refutation of SR?
    No. We start with observation, we use math as a tool to model our observations. If it can be observed, measured, quantified and qualified and done so reproducibly, then I can use mathematics as a tool to model it, and perhaps to derive new predictions. Mathematics can describe the possible and the impossible, and there are many more examples of the latter than the former. To start with the mathematics would therefore be both unscientific and quite idiotic.

    A question for you Chinglu: how do you believe life originated from non-life?
    A question for you Chinglu: how do you believe life originated from non-life?

    I do not know. It cannot be established mathematically or logically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I proved ∂t'/∂t < 0 for a special case.
    IIRC, your special case had no real solutions...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I do not know.
    The story of your life.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    It cannot be established mathematically or logically.
    So, what you're trying to say is that observations and experimental analysis are not logical methods of scientific progress? If so, you really haven't got a clue about the scientific method. Drowsy Turtle has explained to you, time and time again, that experimenting and observing comes before mathematical descriptions. It is not the other way around. Get that through your thick skull before you try to come back with some "wannabe" intelligent remark which will actually make no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Also, I have challenged them to provide the t'A and t'B when at rest from the train frame. I provided said solution.

    Again, no takers.
    Wrong:

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    I didn't put any "solutions" for such things because that would be crazy. There is no such thing as t'A and t'B. It looks like you want the value of t' for A and B in the unprimed frame. Values for t' do not exist in the unprimed frame, they only exist, by definition, in the primed frame. One can find, given a set of coordinates for an event in the primed frame, the coordinates for that event in the unprimed frame. However, the coordinates from one frame exist only in the context of that frame, by the very meaning and use of coordinates and frames.

    All the information you need is here:
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=296084#296084
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=296435#296435

    Again:


    The coordinates for A and B are (0,0) and (0,10) by stipulation.
    v = 0.5 in the positive x direction by stipulation. Thus γ = 1.15470.
    Therefore we simply plug in the Lorentz transformations, t' = γ ( t - v x ).
    For A: t' = 1.15470 ( 0 - 0.5 * 0) = 0
    For B: t' = 1.15470 (0 - 0.5 * 10) = 1.15470(-5) = -5.7735



    You haven't been able to find anything wrong with this, you have only provided crazy rants.

    Anyway, chinglu, as you are so obsessed with mathematics (yet, I've seen no evidence of you being particularly good at it as you claim) have a read of this:


    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...origin-of-life
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I proved ∂t'/∂t < 0 for a special case.
    IIRC, your special case had no real solutions...
    OK, provide math that I am wrong.

    Let's see how that works out for you.

    I provided specific math, now your turn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I do not know.
    The story of your life.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    It cannot be established mathematically or logically.
    So, what you're trying to say is that observations and experimental analysis are not logical methods of scientific progress? If so, you really haven't got a clue about the scientific method. Drowsy Turtle has explained to you, time and time again, that experimenting and observing comes before mathematical descriptions. It is not the other way around. Get that through your thick skull before you try to come back with some "wannabe" intelligent remark which will actually make no sense.
    Gee, I wish I were smart like you. What is that like?

    Anyway, since you are smart provide the math that proves your case. When you fail I will let you ask me about it.


    You are attempting to supply experimental evidence to prove the math. Yet, you have no conception of the math that invokes the theories.

    So, prove your case with math and let's proceed.


    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Also, I have challenged them to provide the t'A and t'B when at rest from the train frame. I provided said solution.

    Again, no takers.
    Wrong:
    I provided math, now you supply counter math.

    That is the way is works.

    Wrong is not an answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    im still waiting for an answer to this question:

    What explicitly (eg specific details) prevents organic molecules in a organic rich liquid bath from becoming more complex?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    im still waiting for an answer to this question:

    What explicitly (eg specific details) prevents organic molecules in a organic rich liquid bath from becoming more complex?
    You do not have a math background.

    And, I have answered this several times.

    As I said and cannot be refuted in the mainstream, the logic of evolution requires the logic of chemistry.

    In the logic of chemistry, chemicals operations are closed under chemistry.

    That is the same thing as saying in math that under Peano arithematic, addition is closed under Peano arithematic,

    So, the problem in evolution is a problem in math.

    Since evolution depends on chemistry, then you add chemicals/molecules/elements. you get a molecule. You do not get anthing with more properties.


    So, your theory of emergence/complexity is logically equivalent to claiming if you add a number several times all of a sudden out of no where you get a dog.

    That is magic and religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    im still waiting for an answer to this question:

    What explicitly (eg specific details) prevents organic molecules in a organic rich liquid bath from becoming more complex?
    You do not have a math background.

    And, I have answered this several times.

    As I said and cannot be refuted in the mainstream, the logic of evolution requires the logic of chemistry.

    In the logic of chemistry, chemicals operations are closed under chemistry.

    That is the same thing as saying in math that under Peano arithematic, addition is closed under Peano arithematic,

    So, the problem in evolution is a problem in math.

    Since evolution depends on chemistry, then you add chemicals/molecules/elements. you get a molecule. You do not get anthing with more properties.


    So, your theory of emergence/complexity is logically equivalent to claiming if you add a number several times all of a sudden out of no where you get a dog.

    That is magic and religion.
    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    im still waiting for an answer to this question:

    What explicitly (eg specific details) prevents organic molecules in a organic rich liquid bath from becoming more complex?
    You do not have a math background.

    And, I have answered this several times.

    As I said and cannot be refuted in the mainstream, the logic of evolution requires the logic of chemistry.

    In the logic of chemistry, chemicals operations are closed under chemistry.

    That is the same thing as saying in math that under Peano arithematic, addition is closed under Peano arithematic,

    So, the problem in evolution is a problem in math.

    Since evolution depends on chemistry, then you add chemicals/molecules/elements. you get a molecule. You do not get anthing with more properties.


    So, your theory of emergence/complexity is logically equivalent to claiming if you add a number several times all of a sudden out of no where you get a dog.

    That is magic and religion.
    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    Your brain is not in sync with the data provided.

    I suggest you seek someone that can help you understand the data I provided.

    I choose a level I will explain. You are not that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I choose a level I will explain. You are not that.
    I wholly agree. Your "chosen level" is asinine. Paleoichneum is not that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    Your brain is not in sync with the data provided.

    I suggest you seek someone that can help you understand the data I provided.

    I choose a level I will explain. You are not that.
    you are avoiding the question.

    I will repeat it:

    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Really, enough is enough. Allowing an idiot like chinglu to remain active on the forum brings the forum into disrepute. The guy is a nutter. His membership should be terminated at once.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Really, enough is enough. Allowing an idiot like chinglu to remain active on the forum brings the forum into disrepute. The guy is a nutter. His membership should be terminated at once.
    Agreed.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Gee, I wish I were smart like you. What is that like?
    Strange, I don't remember saying that I'm smart in my response to you- but if you insist that I am, I won't argue!

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Anyway, since you are smart provide the math that proves your case. When you fail I will let you ask me about it.


    You are attempting to supply experimental evidence to prove the math. Yet, you have no conception of the math that invokes the theories.

    So, prove your case with math and let's proceed.
    Wait, so you want me to use mathematical proofs to prove to you that observation and experimentation comes before the mathematical analysis and that you always use maths to prove the reality not the other way around? Are you incredibly inept on purpose? Or are you just crazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I provided math, now you supply counter math.

    That is the way is works.

    Wrong is not an answer.
    Quote mining now, are we? Are you some sort of creationist? There's a reason I put a colon after the "wrong" as I showed you PhysBang's post against you- which you probably didn't understand and so resorted to claiming that you are of a higher level than everyone else as you normally do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Really, enough is enough. Allowing an idiot like chinglu to remain active on the forum brings the forum into disrepute. The guy is a nutter. His membership should be terminated at once.
    I, also, wholly agree.
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Really, enough is enough. Allowing an idiot like chinglu to remain active on the forum brings the forum into disrepute. The guy is a nutter. His membership should be terminated at once.
    OK, why don't you state specifically the error in my judgement.

    That is how I would handle it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    Your brain is not in sync with the data provided.

    I suggest you seek someone that can help you understand the data I provided.

    I choose a level I will explain. You are not that.
    you are avoiding the question.

    I will repeat it:

    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    You do not understand.

    When I said closure, I meant in a mathematical sense.

    You are talking about something different from me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(mathematics)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Anyway, since you are smart provide the math that proves your case. When you fail I will let you ask me about it.


    You are attempting to supply experimental evidence to prove the math. Yet, you have no conception of the math that invokes the theories.

    So, prove your case with math and let's proceed.
    Wait, so you want me to use mathematical proofs to prove to you that observation and experimentation comes before the mathematical analysis and that you always use maths to prove the reality not the other way around? Are you incredibly inept on purpose? Or are you just crazy?
    Whether you develop your science a priori or a posteriori, it is required to adhere to the rules of math.

    Therefore, if you develop your theory a posteriori, your are required in modern science to provide a mathematical basis for your conclusions.

    You seem to think you can develop a science theory witbout any mathematical basis like your theory exists in the world of magic.

    That works only in the flat earth world of science.

    The CEO of flat earth technologies is hiring folks like you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Whether you develop your science a priori or a posteriori, it is required to adhere to the rules of math.
    Provide valid citations that justify this position.
    Alternatively, explore the benefits of sleeping on highways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    how about actually RESEARCHING biological, geochemical, and geological definitions of closed systems, then tell me:

    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Whether you develop your science a priori or a posteriori, it is required to adhere to the rules of math.
    What are the relevant rules of maths for setting up a bunson burner? What are the relevant rules of maths for noticing a colour change or a precipitate in a solution?

    You're an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Therefore, if you develop your theory a posteriori, your are required in modern science to provide a mathematical basis for your conclusions.
    Only if your hypothesis provides a mathematical premise, should the data be mathematically sound. Otherwise, there is no framework to determine the relevant mathematical outcome.

    You're an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    You seem to think you can develop a science theory witbout any mathematical basis like your theory exists in the world of magic.
    No, I know you can develop a scientific theory without any mathematical basis. I've seen it and lived it.

    Newton's Gravitation had no mathematical basis, the mathematics was devloped afterwards to put the theory to work in modeling the effects of gravity. And as it turned out, these "mathematically sound laws" were only mathematically sound under 'normal' conditions.

    You're an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    The CEO of flat earth technologies is hiring folks like you.
    Did I mention that you're an idiot?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    Your brain is not in sync with the data provided.

    I suggest you seek someone that can help you understand the data I provided.

    I choose a level I will explain. You are not that.
    you are avoiding the question.

    I will repeat it:

    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    You do not understand.

    When I said closure, I meant in a mathematical sense.

    You are talking about something different from me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(mathematics)
    Paleoichneum, your question won't be answered, because Chinglu doesn't know enough about physics to know what a closed system is. When he spoke about "chemistry being closed under chemistry", my best guess is that he meant that chemicals cannot turn into something non-chemical (a bizaar choice of phrasing since 'chemical' is a fairly subjective term usually referring to a man-made molecule). For some reason he chooses to believe that living cells somehow transcend the atoms and molecules they are made of, and states the unsupported assertion that it is not possible for such a transcendant state to emerge from a non-living, 'normal' state.

    Chinglu, life is made of chemicals. If you can name a physical interaction that takes place in the human body that cannot occur in the lab between non-living molecules, I will pay you one million internet-dollars*.

    Of course, no doubt if I show whatever interaction you choose happening, you will demand to see the maths. And I will tell you that you are an idiot.
    __________________________________________________ _______________

    *No real value
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Chinglu

    Drowsy turtle covered everything and more that I was going to respond to that ridiculous post of yours- so I'll leave you to read that, and, more importantly, to understand it.

    I love mathematics as a subject and I understand its vitality to pretty much every field of science- but you don't seem to actually understand, you think that everything in mathematics is in reality; which is quite clearly not true. The calculations currently being produced by string theorists are pure rubbish (words of a particle physics professor I spoke to a few weeks back)- i.e. they contain mathematics, but this isn't realistic maths! You seem to think that if its maths, its true- which is obviously wrong, a crazy religious nutter could use proper maths in one of their crazy beliefs but it will still be utter bogus.

    ...And you call me "a Flat Earth type"... Seems like you're the "proponent of crazy" here.
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    ...And you call me "a Flat Earth type"
    Maybe he means that you approximate a planar tangent in your local position for use in determining things are level, whereas being a mathematical purist (and idiot) he will invent ridiculous equations to demonstrate that your shelves are not level, and therefore do not exist.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Hehe

    Perhaps that is what he means after all!
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Whether you develop your science a priori or a posteriori, it is required to adhere to the rules of math.
    Provide valid citations that justify this position.
    Alternatively, explore the benefits of sleeping on highways.
    Oh, this is amusing.

    You claim the conclusions of science are not based on logic and mathematics.

    That means they are based on religion.

    So, you and I agree on that part.

    I personally base my conclusions on math and logic and do not accept conclusions otherwise.

    But, that is just me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    how about actually RESEARCHING biological, geochemical, and geological definitions of closed systems, then tell me:

    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    I see you did not read my post and besides, I can see based on what you write it is over your head.

    I already explained to you closure in math is not what you are describing.

    In chemistry, chemical operations are closed under chemistry.

    That means if you take a set of chemicals and have chemical operations and the result is a chemical and not a living creature for example. that is called operational closure.

    Now, can you prove if if you take a set of chemicals and perform chemical operations you then can create a cell?

    If so, show me the cites.

    Otherwise, confess you believe in the religious logic of emergence all of a sudden out of no where.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Whether you develop your science a priori or a posteriori, it is required to adhere to the rules of math.
    What are the relevant rules of maths for setting up a bunson burner? What are the relevant rules of maths for noticing a colour change or a precipitate in a solution?

    You're an idiot.
    Let's see, I wonder how NASA was able to land Apollo on the moon.

    Do you think it was because they prayed, talked and had opinions or because they used a science based on math and logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    Chinglu

    Drowsy turtle covered everything and more that I was going to respond to that ridiculous post of yours- so I'll leave you to read that, and, more importantly, to understand it.

    I love mathematics as a subject and I understand its vitality to pretty much every field of science- but you don't seem to actually understand, you think that everything in mathematics is in reality; which is quite clearly not true. The calculations currently being produced by string theorists are pure rubbish (words of a particle physics professor I spoke to a few weeks back)- i.e. they contain mathematics, but this isn't realistic maths! You seem to think that if its maths, its true- which is obviously wrong, a crazy religious nutter could use proper maths in one of their crazy beliefs but it will still be utter bogus.

    ...And you call me "a Flat Earth type"... Seems like you're the "proponent of crazy" here.
    I will attempt to teach you where you are wrong.

    1) You claimed if it is math, then that does not imply it is reality. That is correct. But, I didn't say that. I said, if it is science, then it must be based on math. For whateven reason, this universe is based on math.

    And, if you do not use math to explain your particular science, then you are not explaining the univere but some religious opinion or flat earth technology.

    2) String theory is not logically decidable. therefore, no one can prove it is wrong.

    3) I did not use math in any way to make assertions about nature. I used math to discredit bullshit worthless religious opinions and flat earth assertions that are not based on math.

    In short, you and the other clowns debating me are trying to defend opinions that cannot be supported with math. In other words, they have no logical support.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    how about actually RESEARCHING biological, geochemical, and geological definitions of closed systems, then tell me:

    When exactly in earths history was there a closed system present?
    I see you did not read my post and besides, I can see based on what you write it is over your head.

    I already explained to you closure in math is not what you are describing.

    In chemistry, chemical operations are closed under chemistry.

    That means if you take a set of chemicals and have chemical operations and the result is a chemical and not a living creature for example. that is called operational closure.

    Now, can you prove if if you take a set of chemicals and perform chemical operations you then can create a cell?

    If so, show me the cites.

    Otherwise, confess you believe in the religious logic of emergence all of a sudden out of no where.
    And that answer brings us back t this unresolved question:

    What explicitly (eg specific details) prevents organic molecules in a organic rich liquid bath from becoming more complex?

    And more generally: what is your reason for separating chemical reactions from living organisms?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Let's see, I wonder how NASA was able to land Apollo on the moon.

    Do you think it was because they prayed, talked and had opinions or because they used a science based on math and logic.
    No, they used mathematical models based on centuries of empiric. Without experiments to define constants for use on models and reveal underlying mathematical patterns in data, there can be no mathematical model for gravitation.

    Pretend that you know nothing about how gravity works, what the constants involved are, what the relationship between mass, force and proximity is. How do you calculate your way to the moon?

    You're an idiot.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I already explained to you closure in math is not what you are describing.
    Nor is mathematics what we are describing. Is the best argument you can come up with that his question doesn't match the answer you gave? How can you manage to confuse the relationship between question and answer like this?

    You're an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    In chemistry, chemical operations are closed under chemistry.
    Chemical reactions within my body are therefore also closed under chemistry.

    Meaningless blanket statements with no explanation will achieve nothing.

    You're an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    That means if you take a set of chemicals and have chemical operations and the result is a chemical and not a living creature for example.
    What is the difference between a chemical system that is alive and a chemical system that is not alive?

    By the logic you are using, it should be impossible to die.

    You're an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Now, can you prove if if you take a set of chemicals and perform chemical operations you then can create a cell?
    Yes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitosis

    Quote Originally Posted by Chinglu
    Otherwise, confess you believe in the religious logic of emergence all of a sudden out of no where.
    You really don't know anything about the science you're attacking, do you?

    You're an idiot.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    You claim the conclusions of science are not based on logic and mathematics.
    Logic, not always. Maths, not always.

    Science is, first and foremost, based on observation. Mathematics is, first and foremost, based on creating models to explain these observations (excluding things like statistical analyses).

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    That means they are based on religion.
    No. This is a complete failure of logic that does not deserve a lengthy response.

    You're an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I personally base my conclusions on math and logic and do not accept conclusions otherwise.
    Can you give me an instance of basing a scientific conclusion on mathematics and logic alone? (i.e. without any experimentation or observation).

    If you are able to do so, what you will describe will be a hypothesis, not a paradigm. If tested and found not to accurately represent reality, the mathematics will be abandoned, while the experimental data will not, unless subsequent tests show that there was an error in the data.

    You're an idiot.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    You claim the conclusions of science are not based on logic and mathematics.
    Logic, not always. Maths, not always.
    Look, I am not interested in debating someone that is in the very ancient fossil records.

    When you are able to understand modern science is based on logic and mathematics always, then I will have discussions with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Look, I am not interested in debating someone that is in the very ancient fossil records.
    What do you have against geologists? We're gneiss people!

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    When you are able to understand modern science is based on logic and mathematics always, then I will have discussions with you.
    Can you give a single of example of science being based solely on mathematics?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Geoligists Rock!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Drowsy Turtle,
    the one thing that seems absent from your efficient and effective dismantling of chinglu's 'arguments' is this: I think you should point out from time to time that he is an idiot. This would be helpful to new members. The point cannot be overemphasised.

    Keep up the good work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Look, I am not interested in debating someone that is in the very ancient fossil records.
    What do you have against geologists? We're gneiss people!

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    When you are able to understand modern science is based on logic and mathematics always, then I will have discussions with you.
    Can you give a single of example of science being based solely on mathematics?
    The basis of your argument is that science is not based on math and logic.

    You have many fans I see.

    Much can grow in cracks in the pot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post

    Much can grow in cracks in the pot.
    sorry, but that didnt translate well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    The basis of your argument is that science is not based on math and logic.
    No, my argument is that science is not necessarily based on maths and logic, since much in science seems illogical, and mathematical models usually follow empiric, rather than precede it. I also made this argument in response to your own argument that all science is based on mathematics - an insane idea that completely ignores the established scientific method.

    You're an idiot [this one's for you, ophi ].

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    You have many fans I see.
    Sorry, that's what happens when you post in a scientific forum and make a bit of sense...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Look, I am not interested in debating someone that is in the very ancient fossil records.
    What do you have against geologists? We're gneiss people!

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    When you are able to understand modern science is based on logic and mathematics always, then I will have discussions with you.
    Can you give a single of example of science being based solely on mathematics?
    The basis of your argument is that science is not based on math and logic.

    You have many fans I see.

    Much can grow in cracks in the pot.
    I cannot remember anybody suggesting that science is not based on logic and mathematics, but I do remember people (inc. myself) stating that it is not based purely on mathematics- otherwise it wouldn't be science then! Granted, maths is incredibly important in science (we all know that here)- but observational analysis and experimenting are of greater importance to be honest; if they were not, science would be based purely upon the theory work and nothing would ever be confirmed (as is the current sad state of Superstring theory).
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •