Blowing Up Darwin

[Woodznutz]

Oh boy another religious denier, denying his own propagated and constantly referenced Bible stories.- the moment science/archeology confronts him with FACTS.

(cf. Genesis 3:4–5 and 3:22) The serpent has the ability to speak and to reason: "Now the serpent was more subtle (also translated as "cunning") than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made

The 'serpent' was Satan, not a snake. Study the Hebrew words. The translators did the best they could under the circumstances (they didn't want to offend women).

 

[scruffy]

Sorry - this threat isn't about human condition, or YOUR soul supposedly being in a good condition.

BTW - I do not posses a soul - it's called BRAIN and neuroscience in reference to ones MIND

Brain is the substrate.

Mind is the computations

"Soul" is something they couldn't yet define 3000 years ago because they didn't have enough knowledge yet. But today we can define it pretty accurately.

Approximately speaking in layman's terms, mind creates a reciprocal reference frame and "soul" is the impression of the universe on that reference frame.

It's more than just the memory of mind. It's an active process that requires a working substrate and working computations.

Scientists will probably come up with another name for it someday, but that's what it is.

The proof of the existence of the reciprocal reference frame is that you have a future and a past, whereas the universe only has linear time. Your past depends on memory, but your future is a generative process that lives outside of your mind. Your mind can harness it, and control it to a limited degree, but there's a big chunk of it that's outside the scope of mind.

 

[Kruska]

The 'serpent' was Satan, not a snake. Study the Hebrew words. The translators did the best they could under the circumstances (they didn't want to offend women).

You can't even differentiate your religious Belief, from those invented by Hebrews OT, (Genesis) and those added in by the Roman Church aka NT.

As such, there is nothing in Genesis that states or implies he is Satan.

The serpent in the Garden of Eden is popularly equated with the Devil. However, modern scholars agree that this was a later identification by the Christian church and not the original meaning, as such there is no consensus amongst Bible propagators as to what the original background of the serpent was.
As such, there is nothing in Genesis that states or implies he is Satan.

Again this Thread is about "refuting" Darwinism - (with FACTS) and NOT a platform for religious folks to endlessly recite the content of their kiddo books.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

“Intelligent design” is code. It’s code for religious claims that are completely absent support. I D is entirely dependent on appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

The citation did, in fact, support that scientists were able to synthesize a simple cell.

Your post is not rational, it is alarmist and just as anti intellectual as the fundamentalist Christians we have here in the US.

To claim that ID, asking "How can we determine whether nature has been designed or not" is some kind of "code" some kind of conspiratorial plot is no better than extreme Bible thumpers. you seem to want to represent the question as being "religious" but it is just a question about the natural world, you're really no better than the dogmatists who imprisoned Galileo for asking questions.

 

[Woodznutz]

Brain is the substrate.

Mind is the computations

"Soul" is something they couldn't yet define 3000 years ago because they didn't have enough knowledge yet. But today we can define it pretty accurately.

Approximately speaking in layman's terms, mind creates a reciprocal reference frame and "soul" is the impression of the universe on that reference frame.

It's more than just the memory of mind. It's an active process that requires a working substrate and working computations.

Scientists will probably come up with another name for it someday, but that's what it is.

The proof of the existence of the reciprocal reference frame is that you have a future and a past, whereas the universe only has linear time. Your past depends on memory, but your future is a generative process that lives outside of your mind. Your mind can harness it, and control it to a limited degree, but there's a big chunk of it that's outside the scope of mind.

I think that 'chunk' is called the "spirit in man". It's not the soul or the mind but can influence the mind. It's a higher level of thought i.e. the conscience.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nucleotides form spontaneously in seawater spray with a magnesium ion catalyst. Phosphorylation uses boron as a catalyst.

The 70s ribosome in bacteria has two subunits, one of which is about 1500 nucleotides long and the other is 120 nucleotides long.

To get from individual nucleotides to polymers requires lead ion and cold temperatures, and there are other ways of getting there (like imidazolides). You get about 10% 3'-5' linkages and about 90% 2'-5' linkages. The experiments with imidazolides commonly yield chain lengths of 40 bases within 24 hours.

To get from there to self replicating RNA without enzymes, is actually very easy. Poly-C can direct the replication of long oligo-nucleotides at room temperature. Less than 1% of the product contains non complimentary nucleotides.

These simple reactions lead to the "RNA world" hypothesis, which unfortunately is long since gone and doesn't leave any evidence. What is next is an RNA polymerase enzyme, which makes replication efficient. So now, we have to do a little math. For instance - how long does it take to get a 1500 nucleotide polymer with the correct sequence for a ribosome? If you model oligomerization as a Poisson process the answer is about 400 years. That's in seawater without any protection. But during that 400 years you also get every other sequence of length 1500, so you get your 120-long 5s subunit for free. So this is for the nucleotide portion of a ribosome, and then you also have to account for the 20 or so short proteins that are associated with a ribosome. The good news is that polypeptides are easier and quicker than polynucleotides. The sequence lengths in question are between 100 and 500 amino acids, so it is likely that the polynucleotide is the rate limiting factor.

So we could be generous and say that within 1000 years you'd have enough polymer nucleotides and proteins floating around for self replication, but then the next step is to get them inside a big enough micelle where they're protected and actual cellular replication can begin. This is a non trivial step because you need all the right polynucleotides and all the right proteins in the same place at the same time. But once it happens, you have a cell.

No one really knows how long this step takes because in simple seawater the micelles start eating each other, and there are degredatory processes in addition to constructive ones. The best guess so far is in the neighborhood of around 10,000 years to get a minimal cell. Of course you could speed it up in the laboratory, but under natural conditions the math is very complex and the most we can definitively say is "it takes a while".

But 10,000 years is a reasonable estimate considering we have full-on bacteria within about 500,000 years (complete with a cell wall and structured replication).

This mechanism is entirely plausible but no one's going to wait around 10,000 years to test it. What they do instead is model it on a computer. The best known software platform is called Avida, it runs on a supercomputer or in the cloud. Here is one of the early summaries of Avida from a few years ago:

NASA Astrobiology

Computing the Origin of Life The mystery of life's origins could one day be solved thanks to that modern antithesis of life — the computer.

astrobiology.nasa.gov

These studies are ongoing, and NASA does this for other planets too, not just earth. The interesting thing about Avida is it doesn't actually synthesize any chemicals, instead it synthesizes software - self replicating and evolving software. It is a computational biology model of the real thing.

Avida (software) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So then, any such effort has to deal with errors in replication, which is a form of variability. Even without actual mutation, you still get errors. A lot of attention has been paid to this issue.

Plus, then, there follows immediately the issue of shape. Protein folding is pretty easy compared to nucleotide looping. To get loops, you have to have complementary sequences of the right length. There are still all kinds of proposals about how this might happen, but that it does is undeniable. All your transfer RNA for example, has loops in the right places.

Anyway, that's about the frontier of evolution so far, we're limited by complexity and computation speed.

TLDR - please, no more narcissism, your posts are little more than textual selfies.

 

[Woodznutz]

You can't even differentiate your religious Belief, from those invented by Hebrews OT, (Genesis) and those added in by the Roman Church aka NT.

The serpent in the Garden of Eden is popularly equated with the Devil. However, modern scholars agree that this was a later identification by the Christian church and not the original meaning, as such there is no consensus amongst Bible propagators as to what the original background of the serpent was.

Again this Thread is about "refuting" Darwinism - (with FACTS) and NOT a platform for religious folks to endlessly recite the content of their kiddo books.

Religion (creation) is used to refute Darwin. The being that spoke in Eve's head might have been Lucifer, before it became Satan. Same being.

 

[scruffy]

A "sheitan" is just an evil spirit.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nucleotides form spontaneously in seawater spray with a magnesium ion catalyst. Phosphorylation uses boron as a catalyst.

Quartz (silica) crystals form spontaneously in nature, but transistors do not. Furthermore even if silicon crystals themselves formed in nature they would not have anything like the purity needed to make functional transistors. So your "argument" is ludicrous and I cannot understand how someone who claims to understand science can spout such fairy tale magic.

The 70s ribosome in bacteria has two subunits, one of which is about 1500 nucleotides long and the other is 120 nucleotides long.

To get from individual nucleotides to polymers requires lead ion and cold temperatures, and there are other ways of getting there (like imidazolides). You get about 10% 3'-5' linkages and about 90% 2'-5' linkages. The experiments with imidazolides commonly yield chain lengths of 40 bases within 24 hours.

To get from there to self replicating RNA without enzymes, is actually very easy. Poly-C can direct the replication of long oligo-nucleotides at room temperature. Less than 1% of the product contains non complimentary nucleotides.

These simple reactions lead to the "RNA world" hypothesis, which unfortunately is long since gone and doesn't leave any evidence. What is next is an RNA polymerase enzyme, which makes replication efficient. So now, we have to do a little math. For instance - how long does it take to get a 1500 nucleotide polymer with the correct sequence for a ribosome? If you model oligomerization as a Poisson process the answer is about 400 years. That's in seawater without any protection. But during that 400 years you also get every other sequence of length 1500, so you get your 120-long 5s subunit for free. So this is for the nucleotide portion of a ribosome, and then you also have to account for the 20 or so short proteins that are associated with a ribosome. The good news is that polypeptides are easier and quicker than polynucleotides. The sequence lengths in question are between 100 and 500 amino acids, so it is likely that the polynucleotide is the rate limiting factor.

So we could be generous and say that within 1000 years you'd have enough polymer nucleotides and proteins floating around for self replication, but then the next step is to get them inside a big enough micelle where they're protected and actual cellular replication can begin. This is a non trivial step because you need all the right polynucleotides and all the right proteins in the same place at the same time. But once it happens, you have a cell.

No one really knows how long this step takes because in simple seawater the micelles start eating each other, and there are degredatory processes in addition to constructive ones. The best guess so far is in the neighborhood of around 10,000 years to get a minimal cell. Of course you could speed it up in the laboratory, but under natural conditions the math is very complex and the most we can definitively say is "it takes a while".

But 10,000 years is a reasonable estimate considering we have full-on bacteria within about 500,000 years (complete with a cell wall and structured replication).

This mechanism is entirely plausible but no one's going to wait around 10,000 years to test it. What they do instead is model it on a computer. The best known software platform is called Avida, it runs on a supercomputer or in the cloud. Here is one of the early summaries of Avida from a few years ago:

NASA Astrobiology

Computing the Origin of Life The mystery of life's origins could one day be solved thanks to that modern antithesis of life — the computer.

astrobiology.nasa.gov

These studies are ongoing, and NASA does this for other planets too, not just earth. The interesting thing about Avida is it doesn't actually synthesize any chemicals, instead it synthesizes software - self replicating and evolving software. It is a computational biology model of the real thing.

Avida (software) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So then, any such effort has to deal with errors in replication, which is a form of variability. Even without actual mutation, you still get errors. A lot of attention has been paid to this issue.

Plus, then, there follows immediately the issue of shape. Protein folding is pretty easy compared to nucleotide looping. To get loops, you have to have complementary sequences of the right length. There are still all kinds of proposals about how this might happen, but that it does is undeniable. All your transfer RNA for example, has loops in the right places.

Anyway, that's about the frontier of evolution so far, we're limited by complexity and computation speed.

 

[Woodznutz]

A "sheitan" is just an evil spirit.

Lucifer became an evil spirit, so maybe God named him "evil spirit": Satan. He became a 'serpent' from his whispering in Eve's ear, likened to the hissing of a snake. A clever deceiver is still called a "snake in the grass".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It’s code at your ID’iot creationer madrassah.

As you’re not paying attention, from the link,

“Scientists create the simplest cell with only bare essentials for life and reproduction”

Right we already know that people - intelligences - can create, what's your point here?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you want to argue intelligence you have to do it from universal symmetries.

Everything else is explainable with the laws of probability.

What is the explanation for the existence of laws of probability? Did they too simply "spontaneously" emerge?

The idea behind Avida is it uses the same laws of symmetry and probability without using actual chemicals. It's a kinetic model using just the numbers. In theory it's just as good as real chemistry.

The lesson is that you are limited by complexity before you can get to an actual cell. The number of chemical combinations in a 10,000 year period is so huge that you can't model it.

 

[Kruska]

Religion (creation) is used to refute Darwin.

Yes - that is well known, since a religious person can't come up with any facts to refute Darwin, Science and Archeology.

Therefore they keep endlessly regurgitating the contents of the OT and NT. - whilst even mixing them up.

As such feel free to keep your Belief (no problem with me) - but it is very unwise if not to say ridiculous to use fable stories in order to refute Science and Archeology.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Depends on the computer.

If it's Windows, definitely not.

Windows is perhaps the only modern example of a designed OS.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Fundamental symmetries of the universe, of course.

Can you explain the presence of these? to what can we attribute their presence? magic?

 

[PoliticalChic]

NONE of the Democrats are liberals. You see, a true Liberal approves of believing in GOD. Why is that? Because to be liberal, one must be very very tolerant. And Democrats are not tolerant at all, they are authoritarians.

I didn't say or mean "classical liberals."

They are of the sort that John Dewey convinced to change the name "Socialist" to liberal.


Today, liberal, socialist, Democrat, progressive, are synonyms.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Conservation of mass.

Conservation of energy.

Right the so-called laws of physics, where did the come from? magic?

Trust me, a capricious whimsical God does not arbitrarily change the laws that He himself created.

There is no poofing into existence. Everything that exists obeys physical laws.

Except the laws themselves, clearly they exist but do not obey laws, laws cannot be the explanation for laws.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Blah blah blah I'm a chix blah blah blah

But no denial.

Excellent.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes - that is well known, since a religious person can't come up with any facts to refute Darwin, Science and Archeology.

Therefore they keep endlessly regurgitating the contents of the OT and NT. - whilst even mixing them up.

As such feel free to keep your Belief (no problem with me) - but it is very unwise if not to say ridiculous to use fable stories in order to refute Science and Archeology.

Science is the study of creation. Evolution is the crazy aunt of science.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Brain is the substrate.

Mind is the computations

Human brains do not perform computations, there are no algorithms, no machine instructions, no registers, no software, no system clock that synchronizes everything.

"Soul" is something they couldn't yet define 3000 years ago because they didn't have enough knowledge yet. But today we can define it pretty accurately.

Approximately speaking in layman's terms, mind creates a reciprocal reference frame and "soul" is the impression of the universe on that reference frame.

It's more than just the memory of mind. It's an active process that requires a working substrate and working computations.

Scientists will probably come up with another name for it someday, but that's what it is.

The proof of the existence of the reciprocal reference frame is that you have a future and a past, whereas the universe only has linear time. Your past depends on memory, but your future is a generative process that lives outside of your mind. Your mind can harness it, and control it to a limited degree, but there's a big chunk of it that's outside the scope of mind.