Evolution question.

[Libby von H]

Which abiogenesis? Which selection? That we are dust is much more easy to see after the death of a living structure. But if butterflies would not exist we could not imagine such creatures.

HOw stupid ,it can't be the non-living driver of something living. HOW STUPID.
Now you are attributing purpose to the purely material as an explanation for what happens to existing creatures with purpose already.

WHAT A MORON , sorry, that is stupid beyond belief

 

[Woodznutz]

I will stop at the 5 errors in what you say, gleaned over the years
1)Why would you assume that the one calling something 'undesirable" has to be right?
2)Why does being undesirable mean --- even were it not tautological -- you should die
3) Improving the species is not something with a referent , you treat it likek the 'common good'but it is used to kill particular people inthe name of faceless, anonymous, nowhere-to-be-found general public
4)maybe saving the most unwanted is the HIGHEST value of a people !! Gotcha there
5) Nowhere is said that one can tie a trait to a gene, you make that up , showing you are a scientific moron.

I can name 10 horrible human traits that are inherently not tieable to a gene,eg Anti-semitism

You got all that from a few sentences. Wow.

 

[Hollie]

And often used in completely wrong contextes. Sometimes the theory of evolution makes sense - sometimes not and sometimes it is even totally wrong to use it. Cars for example do not evolve. Never did do so. It exists no evolution of cars - or an evolution of any other machines. Only our collective knowledge grows in this context and also customs and fashions are changing. But the source of this growth are human beings with wonderful intuitions and not structural modifications of genes. Or electromagnetism (="light" and/or radiation) for example also did not evolve. Electromagnetism froze out. Or "arts" on its own. Many people think arts evolves - but very good artists often say arts were perfect since arts had been born.

The “wrong context” applies to silly creation ministries. The relevant science community is not in doubt that species evolve.

Correct. Cars and inanimate objects do not evolve. That would be biological organisms which evolve.

 

[Woodznutz]

That would be biological organisms which evolve.

There is not a single biological organism found in the fossil record or in living organisms that exhibits any need for change.

 

[dblack]

There is not a single biological organism found in the fossil record or in living organisms that exhibits any need for change.

So?

 

[scruffy]

Dimensionality is a primary driver of biological evolution.

For example - let's say we start with an amino acid sequence containing charged groups, as follows:

---- N ++++

Where N is a neutral "joint" with a flexible conformation.

The physics says, the oppositely charged ends will eventually attract, forming a circle. This process is equivalent to "compactification" and results in a projective mapping.

Furthermore, populations of such molecules will form more complex structures and some of these may be stable, especially in ionic environments. For instance the charge groups on phospholipid micelles are on the outside, where they attract the + side of paramagnetic H2O. (They're unstable on the inside, the micelle breaks).

So we have 1-dimensional DNA instructions generating 2- and 3-dimensional geometry, not always perfectly. The reason it works so well is the instructions depend on the underlying physics to self assemble the result. The instructions put "this many" molecules "over there" in the cell, and the rest depends on physics and chemistry.

The ease with which the physics of self assembly can be disrupted, is remarkable and noteworthy. You can stick a pin into a tadpole embryo at exactly the right time, and it will grow a third arm where its eye was supposed to be. Proper development depends on internal gradients that are regulated dynamically throughout the lifetime of the organism. The instructions respond to the current environment, so if they sense an "arm environment" they'll grow an arm.

A fancy word for the orientation of the organism is "cephalization", it means one end is the head and the other end is the tail. This process starts at the very first embryonic cell division. The "what" of it operates this way, but the "when" of it involves catastrophes that change the expression dynamics, thereby forcing new attractors into the system. The system will dutifully seek the attractor until the next catastrophe.

 

[Woodznutz]

So?

So buttons on yer underwear.

 

[dblack]

So buttons on yer underwear.

Why do you think your statement has any relevance?

 

[Woodznutz]

The “wrong context” applies to silly creation ministries. The relevant science community is not in doubt that species evolve.

If species evolved, they must necessarily be evolving still, especially man. Therefore, we are not responsible for our actions as we are "a work in progress". So why so many laws concerning our behavior?

 

[Woodznutz]

Why do you think your statement has any relevance?

The curvature of the earth is basically irrelevant to the activities of man.

 

[dblack]

We construct buildings as if the earth is flat.

Four out of five doctors prefer Bon Jovi.

 

[Woodznutz]

Four out of five doctors prefer Bon Jovi.

Revisit my post.

 

[dblack]

Revisit my post.

I think I'll pass. You've got a screw loose.

 

[Woodznutz]

Four out of five doctors prefer Bon Jovi.

Four out of five doctors are overcharging us. That's 'relevant'.

 

[Woodznutz]

I think I'll pass. You've got a screw loose.

I'll post it for you.

"The curvature of the earth is basically irrelevant to the activities of man."

Just as science is basically irrelevant to the societal problems of man, except in a negative way.

 

[Woodznutz]

I think I'll pass. You've got a screw loose.

I'll admit that my brain isn't wired like yours is.

 

[zaangalewa]

Any abiogenesis, anywhere.

We know nothing in this context. Not here on Earth and not anywhere else. Abiogenesis is just simple a plausible hypothese - plausible because we are made with "dust" how the bible says and what is also our experience in natural science when we take a look at dead matter, elements, atoms, molecules which aer [nearly] the same in our body. ... But never any experiment was able to be made which made out of dead matter something what we could call "life" or "spirit".

Selection by physical forces.

Is a formula without any content. Whatelse than physical should be a force? But how gravitation creates life for example?

By the way`: Why do you try to force me continously to repeat what I said? Do you think repetitions create truth?

 

[zaangalewa]

The “wrong context” applies to silly creation ministries.

I guess about 90% and more what's said about evolution is only nonsense or quite simply wrong.

The relevant science community is not in doubt that species evolve.

Who is not in doubt but calls himselve scientist?

„Die meisten von uns – dessen müssen wir uns bewußt sein – lieben ihre Hypothesen, und es ist, wie ich einmal sagte, eine zwar schmerzhafte, aber jung und gesund erhaltende Turnübung, täglich, gewissermaßen als Frühsport, seine Lieblingshypothese über Bord zu werfen.“
Konrad Lorenz

"Most of us - we have to be aware of this - love our hypotheses, and it is, as I once said, a painful exercise, but one that keeps us young and healthy, to throw our favorite hypothesis overboard every day, as a kind of early morning exercise."
Konrad Lorenz

Correct. Cars and inanimate objects do not evolve. That would be biological organisms which evolve.

 

[surada]

From reading lots of articles that deal with the subject, all rabbit holes of endless confusion. Not one reveals how evolution actually works. Just read another one today, on longevity. It begins with, "Thanks to science (evolution) we can live to 100." He then suggests behaviors that almost no one will follow while completely ignoring ones that people would follow if properly understood.

You believe in creation mythos? There are so many.

 

[surada]

If the cornerstone of evolution is the extinction of species with 'undesirable traits' why do we go out of our way to save people who have these traits? Kinda makes the ToE irrelevant doesn't it? Don't we need the "Darwin Effect" to improve our species?

My (science/ToE oriented) dentist wanted to pull my wisdom teeth, which no doubt took evolution some time to 'select for'. He said it would prevent any dental problems later on. I was 45 at the time and had never had any problems with my wisdom teeth. I'm now 83 and except for having one crowned have never had a problem with them. Why would a strong believer in evolution want to thwart one of its successful accomplishments?

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A creation myth (or creation story) is a cultural, religious or traditional myth which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world.

Creation myths are the most common form of myth, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation myth is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, though not necessarily in a historical or literal sense.

They are commonly, though not always, considered cosmogonical myths, that is, they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.