James Tour destroys origin of life theory.

[longview]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It's agnostic on the issue.

Says who?  Why are you setting the frameworks of this discussion?  It is simple logic to inquire on the origins of homo sapiens as coming from Chimpanzees, the origins of the Saber toothed tiger as coming from weird kind of mammal, the origins of the Trilobites as coming from primitive RNAs (your great^10000 grandpa).

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Evolution doesn't know how it began. It doesn't care.

But is dependent on precursor life forms.  You are not the first to suggest God uses evolution (several on this board argues that).  I totally reject that idea (people are denigrating God by thinking God has to use evolution to carry on His creative works).  God has power to command the elements (see my signature block below).  As Snowflake said earlier in this thread, you are simply kicking the can down the road.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No one wants to be racist and no one wants to be against free speech or against fairness. Let's try this again using concrete examples. On racism. Racism exists, but there is an element on the left that might label anyone who is for any type of border between countries as a racist. The people doing this are attempting to get their way by using charged language.

An  element?  (How small of a group?)  You make it sound like they are a small fringe making outrageous attacks.   NO.  It is pervasive across the entire left wing.  "An element that might?   NO.  A large segment that is foaming in the mouth determined to destroy the deplorables.  You are trying really hard to evade my points.  But you cannot escape the fact that it is the left that is engaged in weaponizing and carrying on a full scale attack on conservatives.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Evolution vs traditional creationism is settled science.

That statement is very unscientific.  I am surprised at you.  Never, NEVER, use the word "settled" in any scientific pursuits.  "Traditional Creationism" is meaningless to me.  I would prefer to study nonpolitical science (uncorrupted by anyone that has a hidden agenda) and to ponder on scriptural accounts and to contrast some elements of science with some of scripture.  Science does not have all the answers and the scriptures do not give a full accounting.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The same as Aristotelian vs Newtonian view of motion. Does a college campus or high school need to teach Aristotelian motion to promote academic inquiry and freedom of speech? That would be absurd.

NO.  It is you that is being absurd.  Describing Aristotelian science shows how they reasoned the way they did and how later generations were able to discover new avenues by questioning, observing, experimenting, measuring, theorizing.  Thus arriving at Newtonian science.  Should the Victorians say Newtonian Physics is "settled" science?  NO.  Because Einstein came along and published mind-blowing theories on cosmology, relativistic physics, quantum physics and more.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just as absurd would be hiring a biology teacher that doesn't teach evolution. You would have us turn a blind eye to truth and science by arguing that some ideal of freedom of expression is being curtailed here.

What is absurd is for the academic elites (including social engineers and collectivists) to limit the discussions closely within the "approved bounds" of the "narrative" that they have carefully honed and polished.  There are many more questions that are being asked that are kept out of biology textbooks.  Same is happening in geology, gender studies, and a whole host of politically "sensitive" topics.  They are NOT afraid to abuse and twist the science to further their agenda

Edited September 15, 2019 by longview

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, longview said:

 

This will be my last post in response to you. Feel free to have the last word. 

Quote

Says who?  Why are you setting the frameworks of this discussion? 

Again you are just showing ignorance here. Per wiki: Evolution is change in the heritablecharacteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

How chemistry turned into biology is simply not there. It’s definitional. Arguing against the definition of a word seems counterproductive to me, ymmv. 

Quote

It is simple logic to inquire on the origins of homo sapiens as coming from Chimpanzees, the origins of the Saber toothed tiger as coming from weird kind of mammal, the origins of the Trilobites as coming from primitive RNAs (your great^10000 grandpa).

But is dependent on precursor life forms.  You are not the first to suggest God uses evolution (several on this board argues that).  I totally reject that idea (people are denigrating God by thinking God has to use evolution to carry on His creative works).  God has power to command the elements (see my signature block below).  As Snowflake said earlier in this thread, you are simply kicking the can down the road.

I don’t believe in God actually, so you are mistaken there. Scientists are the first to admit to the limits of their knowledge. How did life begin? We don’t know. We may never know. What if anything caused the Big Bang? Ditto. Are there other universes? Ditto. What’s dark energy, dark matter? Ditto. Positing a God adds nothing to our understanding of how stuff works any more than just saying it was magic. What caused God? Aren’t you just kicking the can down the road by saying God did it?

 

Quote

An  element?  (How small of a group?)  You make it sound like they are a small fringe making outrageous attacks.   NO.  It is pervasive across the entire left wing.  "An element that might?   NO.  A large segment that is foaming in the mouth determined to destroy the deplorables.  You are trying really hard to evade my points.  But you cannot escape the fact that it is the left that is engaged in weaponizing and carrying on a full scale attack on conservatives.

From my perspective tactics of the left and right are the same. It’s rare to find people irl though that actually fit the cookie cutter mold that you are painting. 

Quote

That statement is very unscientific.  I am surprised at you.  Never, NEVER, use the word "settled" in any scientific pursuits.

Again you misunderstand. Newtonian physics breaks down as you approach the speed of light, but for all almost all practical purposes is still used. Evolution is similar. Our knowledge will continue to grow and expand, but short of a purposefully deceptive God, common decent, natural selection, etc is settled. 

Quote

NO.  It is you that is being absurd.  Describing Aristotelian science

This is a misnomer. There was no Aristotelian “science”. 

Quote

shows how they reasoned the way they did and how later generations were able to discover new avenues by questioning, observing, experimenting, measuring, theorizing.  Thus arriving at Newtonian science.  Should the Victorians say Newtonian Physics is "settled" science?  NO.  Because Einstein came along and published mind-blowing theories on cosmology, relativistic physics, quantum physics and more.

Again, in this analogy, Aristotelian motion is garbage and completely false. For all almost practical purposes Newtonian motion is still used. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and other recent discoveries have enriched our understanding, but have not negated Newton or more basic chemistry. So special creationism is like Aristotelian motion (completely false and worthless scientifically). Evolution is like Newtonian motion. Is there more to the story? Probably. Will evolution be overturned. No. 

Quote

What is absurd is for the academic elites (including social engineers and collectivists) to limit the discussions closely within the "approved bounds" of the "narrative" that they have carefully honed and polished. 

No what is absurd is for people with an ideological ax to grind and no grasp of the science or evidence to expect to be respected in their fields. Again I’d never send my kid to a school that taught the earth was flat or that Aristotelian motion was how things worked or even that their was some question on these subjects. 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[longview]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a misnomer. There was no Aristotelian “science”. 

It was you that coined it in your previous post.  Just trying to help you keep your focus.  But you ramble a lot.  That is your style.  So let it be - - -

Let It Be

The Beatles

When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be

Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

And when the broken-hearted people living in the world agree
There will be an answer, let it be
For though they may be parted, there is still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be

Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Yeah, there will be an answer, let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

Let it be, let it be, let it be, yeah, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

And when…

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, longview said:

It was you that coined it in your previous post.  

Apologies for the response, but for the record, I said Aristotelian motion. You said Aristotelian science. Hope you have a good night. Thx, John

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

I would prefer to study nonpolitical science (uncorrupted by anyone that has a hidden agenda) 

Your actions cast doubt on your declared intentions.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, longview said:

Where is the seam between abiogenesis and biological evolution?  No identifiable point.

The seam is after life arrived on this planet. Very easily definable point.

There is no reason that mechanisms that drive biological formation would be the same mechanisms that shape biological adaptation.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That said, a campus refusing to hire Dr. Tour to teach nanotechnology based on his religious views on creation would be a mistake and a loss in my opinion. 

It depends. If he drones on about his vast qualifications like he did in that clip every time he talks I would avoid hiring him no matter how brilliant he might be.

[longview]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Your actions cast doubt on your declared intentions.

How can you doubt?  I made it very clear that many sciences have been corrupted by social engineers who want to lead gullible people to the world wide collectivist utopia (using their vision/version of pure communism).  Climate science has been debauched by operatives whose real objectives are to greatly expand the power and reach of a massive bureaucratic state and degrade the quality of life for the common people.  Members of this board have outright admitted that even if AGW turns out to be a false alarm, they would be OK with a more controlling government.   The basic unit (family) is being subjected to more and more burdens and disruptions with the agitation for redefining genders and adding insane panoply of weird perversions.  It should obvious that the evolution "narrative" is set up in such a way to indoctrinate children into losing confidence in the Bible.

My actions, pure and simple, is to expose those abuses to the glaring burning light of the sun. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

How can you doubt?  I made it very clear that many sciences have been corrupted by social engineers who want to lead gullible people to the world wide collectivist utopia (using their vision/version of pure communism).  Climate science has been debauched by operatives whose real objectives are to greatly expand the power and reach of a massive bureaucratic state and degrade the quality of life for the common people.  Members of this board have outright admitted that even if AGW turns out to be a false alarm, they would be OK with a more controlling government.   The basic unit (family) is being subjected to more and more burdens and disruptions with the agitation for redefining genders and adding insane panoply of weird perversions.  It should obvious that the evolution "narrative" is set up in such a way to indoctrinate children into losing confidence in the Bible.

My actions, pure and simple, is to expose those abuses to the glaring burning light of the sun. 

You have made no such thing clear other then asserting it. Good luck in your crusade though! Shine on you crazy diamond!

Edited September 15, 2019 by The Nehor

[longview]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The seam is after life arrived on this planet. Very easily definable point.

Was it the Trilobites?  Did they come down with parachutes?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Was it the Trilobites?  Did they come down with parachutes?

Not that I recall. They didn't taste very good anyway. Too prickly. But there was a noticeable pineapple flavor.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, longview said:

Was it the Trilobites?  Did they come down with parachutes?

I have no idea what it was. If it came from abiogenesis it is not still around. If it was transplanted and evolved it is probably not still around. It is the same reason abiogenesis, if it did happen today, would not be detected or noticed. The poor lifeform would be quickly destroyed or devoured as it would have virtually no defenses or any effective forms of attack all the other lifeforms have been developing for a very long time through natural selection.

[longview]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have no idea what it was. If it came from abiogenesis it is not still around. If it was transplanted and evolved it is probably not still around. It is the same reason abiogenesis, if it did happen today, would not be detected or noticed. The poor lifeform would be quickly destroyed or devoured as it would have virtually no defenses or any effective forms of attack all the other lifeforms have been developing for a very long time through natural selection.

Interesting perspectives.  We still have to grapple with the question of inter-species evolution.  There is NO geological evidence of it.  Several on this board have tried.  The best that I have seen is something about miniature horses from eons past.  Not good enough.

[Ahab]

On 9/12/2019 at 6:27 AM, pogi said:

There is not one genesis theory in science or religion that is without enormous holes in human understanding...

What holes if any do you see in our understanding of how life on this planet began?  I don't see any.  I believe our understanding is that life was brought here from somewhere else and that there never was a time when there were no forms of life in all of existence.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, longview said:

Interesting perspectives.  We still have to grapple with the question of inter-species evolution.  There is NO geological evidence of it.  Several on this board have tried.  The best that I have seen is something about miniature horses from eons past.  Not good enough.

It is called speciation.

Here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

[Ahab]

44 minutes ago, longview said:

Interesting perspectives.  We still have to grapple with the question of inter-species evolution.  There is NO geological evidence of it.  Several on this board have tried.  The best that I have seen is something about miniature horses from eons past.  Not good enough.

What question do you have in mind regarding inter-species evolution?  You mean like how another species of dog could be created using 2 other species of dogs?  Like a lab and a poodle getting together to create a labradoodle?

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What question do you have in mind regarding inter-species evolution?  You mean like how another species of dog could be created using 2 other species of dogs?  Like a lab and a poodle getting together to create a labradoodle?

Your example is wrong. Commonly domesticated breeds of dogs are all one species: canis familiaris.

The common definition of a species is that it is a group of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring. A donkey and a horse for example are not here same species but can mate a bad produce offspring (mules) but the offspring is sterile. The definition is not perfect but it is a starting point and is generally accurate.

 

[Ahab]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Your example is wrong. Commonly domesticated breeds of dogs are all one species: canis familiaris.

The common definition of a species is that it is a group of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring. A donkey and a horse for example are not here same species but can mate a bad produce offspring (mules) but the offspring is sterile. The definition is not perfect but it is a starting point and is generally accurate.

 

So what are some examples if any of inter-species evolution?  And what evidence is there if any to show that it has ever happened?  If a donkey is supposed to be an example of that is there any evidence to show that such a new species has ever reproduced?

[Stargazer]

On 9/13/2019 at 1:56 PM, cinepro said:

I haven't really kept up to speed on this, so can you explain what you mean by "current narrative"?  What is this "narrative" that one must support or otherwise risk punishment, and who are the scientists that are doing the punishing (what are their names)? 

Can you provide an example of a scientist that didn't toe the line and got punished?

 

On 9/14/2019 at 12:48 AM, The Nehor said:

No, I am saying there is no vast scientific conspiracy.

The thing about "current narrative" is that we have seen this kind of thing before -- in the history of science is almost axiomatic, that those who assert things that are contrary to the "current narrative" get pilloried.  And it needn't be a conspiracy -- although it could have elements of conspiracy, if only unconscious conspiracy (which isn't conspiracy, I guess).

And for you, cinepro, when Wegener proposed continental drift, he was pilloried. When Ignaz Semmelweis proposed that doctors failing to wash their hands was causing child-bed fever and significant maternal mortality, he was hounded by his colleagues, and eventually dismissed from the hospital for political reasons and harassed by the medical community in Vienna, being eventually forced to move to Budapest.  These are far from the only instances, and maybe not even the strongest examples, but you can take it as an axiom that failing to toe the line can lead to negative consequences.

In another realm, I recall seeing news coverage many years ago in which a commentator described a political candidate as "lacking gravitas", and oddly, seemingly unconnected and overnight, all the remaining news commentators were using the same term, "gravitas", as if it meant something. Call it what you will, but if it wasn't conspiratorial, and I don't think it was, it was certainly of the "current narrative", and all the political fellow travelers fed upon each others' expression and came into line against the candidate.  There are plenty of current examples of the same kind of thing happening even now.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

So what are some examples if any of inter-species evolution?  And what evidence is there if any to show that it has ever happened?  If a donkey is supposed to be an example of that is there any evidence to show that such a new species has ever reproduced?

There is only one example, probably a weak one, that I have ever heard of, and that involves the presence of Neanderthal DNA in our human DNA.  Which is not present in all human DNA, but only humans descended from humans who lived in Europe at a time when Neanderthals were also present.  Some have used this as evidence that humans successfully interbred with Neanderthals, with fertile offspring.  I don't know if that's valid or not, since if evolutionary biology is correct, humans and Neanderthals have a common ancestor, and obviously would have to share DNA to some degree in any case.  

Sometimes I wish I had a time machine.

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

There is only one example, probably a weak one, that I have ever heard of, and that involves the presence of Neanderthal DNA in our human DNA.  Which is not present in all human DNA, but only humans descended from humans who lived in Europe at a time when Neanderthals were also present.  Some have used this as evidence that humans successfully interbred with Neanderthals, with fertile offspring.  I don't know if that's valid or not, since if evolutionary biology is correct, humans and Neanderthals have a common ancestor, and obviously would have to share DNA to some degree in any case.  

Sometimes I wish I had a time machine.

Yeah I'd say that's a weak example.  From people who suppose Neanderthals are a different species from "regular" people.  Unless the word "Neanderthal" is simply a name we use to refer to any person who was born a long time ago in what is now referred to as Europe, in which case we'd simply be talking about a person from Europe mixing with a person from, say, perhaps, China, resulting in some other kind of person.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Ahab

[longview]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is called speciation.

Here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

I read the wiki.  But still no geological examples for long term transitions (over tens of millions of years (or whichever scale you wish to use)).  The shorter the intervals and more frequent the layers would be ideal.

Edited September 16, 2019 by longview

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

I read the wiki.  But still no geological examples for long term transitions (over tens of millions of years (or whichever scale you wish to use)).  The shorter the intervals and more frequent the layers would be ideal.

This is actually highly unlikely, for the simple reason that fossils are in fact exceedingly rare, because the conditions required for fossilization are very difficult to be fulfilled.  There are undoubtedly millions of species of formerly living organisms that never got fossilized, and so we'd never see them.

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yeah I'd say that's a weak example.  From people who suppose Neanderthals are a different species from "regular" people.  Unless the word "Neanderthal" is simply a name we use to refer to any person who was born a long time ago in what is now referred to as Europe, in which case we'd simply be talking about a person from Europe mixing a person from, say, perhaps, China, resulting in some other kind of person.

The ability to interbreed with homo sapiens would tend to contradict the idea that they were a distinct species. In fact, there appears to be argument amongst evolutionary biologists as to whether they are homo neanderthalensis or homo sapiens neanderthalensis.  Or merely a subspecies of human.  Their skull shapes don't really closely resemble ours, however, so comparing them to someone living a long way away, like Europeans do as compared to those in China, is very inaccurate.

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The ability to interbreed with homo sapiens would tend to contradict the idea that they were a distinct species. In fact, there appears to be argument amongst evolutionary biologists as to whether they are homo neanderthalensis or homo sapiens neanderthalensis.  Or merely a subspecies of human.  Their skull shapes don't really closely resemble ours, however, so comparing them to someone living a long way away, like Europeans do as compared to those in China, is very inaccurate.

People come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, so skull shapes and sizes don't really necessarily determine whether or not someone or something is or was a person, as I see it.  The skull would simply be the skull of either a person or an animal, like a gorilla, for example.

For ease of understanding it would be nice if so-called scientists would refer to a person as a person rather than a homo this or a homo that.  If it's a person let's just call it a person, wherever and whenever it was born or reproduced by other people.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Ahab