|
Title: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 23, 2015, 07:01:20 PM [...] The 101 version of his big idea is this: Under the right conditions, a random group of atoms will self-organize, unbidden, to more effectively use energy. Over time and with just the right amount of, say, sunlight, a cluster of atoms could come remarkably close to what we call life. In fact, here’s a thought: Some things we consider inanimate actually may already be “alive.” It all depends on how we define life, something England’s work might prompt us to reconsider. “People think of the origin of life as being a rare process,” says Vijay Pande, a Stanford chemistry professor. “Jeremy’s proposal makes life a consequence of physical laws, not something random.” England’s idea may sound strange, even incredible, but it’s drawn the attention of an impressive posse of high-level academics. After all, while Darwinism may explain evolution and the complex world we live in today, it doesn’t account for the onset of intelligent beings. England’s insistence on probing for the step that preceded all of our current assumptions about life is what makes him stand out, says Carl Franck, a Cornell physics professor, who’s been following England’s work closely. “Every 30 years or so we experience these gigantic steps forward,” Franck says. “We’re due for one. And this might be it.” [...] England didn’t begin with number-crunching, though. During his postdoc research on embryonic development, he kept coming back to the question: What qualifies something as alive or not? He later superimposed an analytical rigor to that question, publishing an equation in 2013 about how much energy is required for self-replication to take place. For England, that investigation was only the beginning. “I couldn’t stop thinking about it,” he says, his normally deep voice rising until eventually cracking. “It was so frustrating.” Over the next year, he worked on a second paper, which is under peer review now. This one took his past findings and used them to explain theoretically how, under certain physical circumstances, life could emerge from nonlife. In the most basic terms, Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment. England doesn’t dispute this reasoning, but he argues that it’s too vague. For instance, he says, blue whales and phytoplankton thrive in the same environmental conditions — the ocean — but they do so by vastly different means. That’s because that while they’re both made of the same basic building blocks, strings of DNA are arranged differently in each organism. Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism? These are pretty things to ponder. Unfortunately, England’s work hasn’t yet provided any answers, leaving the professor in a kind of speculative state as he doggedly tries to put numbers to it all. “He hasn’t put enough cards on the table yet,” Franck says. “He’ll need to make more testable predictions.” So it remains to be seen where England will land in the end. Other scientists have made similar claims about energy dissipation in the context of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, but none has found a definitive means for applying this science to the origin of life. http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars-and-provocateurs/the-man-who-may-one-up-darwin/39217?utm_source=HF1&utm_medium=pp&utm_campaign=pp Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Tusk on April 23, 2015, 07:35:14 PM GREAT FIND! wow such a refreshing perspective that the bacteria in my gut tell me is pointing a way out of the cul de sac we have been lost in. I think the universe is Alive! everything is as much a product of its environment and the environment is the sum of the parts. Through cycles of energy/entropy, oxidation/reduction electricity/magnetism ...etc all the parts are connected in a cosmic dance. Consciousness is an evolutionary frontier with a cycle of free will and empathy.
Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 23, 2015, 08:14:45 PM GREAT FIND! wow such a refreshing perspective that the bacteria in my gut tell me is pointing a way out of the cul de sac we have been lost in. I think the universe is Alive! everything is as much a product of its environment and the environment is the sum of the parts. Through cycles of energy/entropy, oxidation/reduction electricity/magnetism ...etc all the parts are connected in a cosmic dance. Consciousness is an evolutionary frontier with a cycle of free will and empathy. Everything is one. We are on our way to find out. Hopefully. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: BitMos on April 23, 2015, 08:35:24 PM IN GOD I TRUST, the rest I don't care, you waste your time, enjoy the Earth and everything encompassing it... the rest... illusion, disillusion, waste of time, waste of love, waste of happiness, waste of ;D.
Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 23, 2015, 10:30:21 PM IN GOD I TRUST, the rest I don't care, you waste your time, enjoy the Earth and everything encompassing it... the rest... illusion, disillusion, waste of time, waste of love, waste of happiness, waste of ;D. You should read the whole article. He does too. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Spendulus on April 23, 2015, 10:38:41 PM .... Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism? ..... And over time, the molecules in beer get worse, to protect the beer. Smart Beer! And over time, a tomato rearranges it's atoms to become unattractive to people. Smart Tomatos! And over time, newspapers rearrange themselves such that their content is less interesting than the Internet. Obviously this is the work of... Smart Trees! Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: TheButterZone on April 23, 2015, 10:51:06 PM A tomato will decompose because no animal nearby wants to eat it at its peak, until it is fully consumed by all lesser organisms so that it is no longer unattractive/visible to people.
Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 23, 2015, 10:55:27 PM .... Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism? ..... And over time, the molecules in beer get worse, to protect the beer. Smart Beer! And over time, a tomato rearranges it's atoms to become unattractive to people. Smart Tomatos! And over time, newspapers rearrange themselves such that their content is less interesting than the Internet. Obviously this is the work of... Smart Trees! A judge said monkeys (http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/21/8460657/judge-gives-chimpanzees-human-rights-first-time) have human rights earlier this week... Should crystal glasses be a protected group under opera singer's tortures, a billion years from now? Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Tusk on April 24, 2015, 04:29:25 AM .... Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism? ..... And over time, the molecules in beer get worse, to protect the beer. Smart Beer! And over time, a tomato rearranges it's atoms to become unattractive to people. Smart Tomatos! And over time, newspapers rearrange themselves such that their content is less interesting than the Internet. Obviously this is the work of... Smart Trees! I would like to point out that that the tomato only becomes antagonistic to the parts of the ecosystem that do not reciprocate, it rewards those that do. The fruit is nourishment to those who help disseminate its seed, in the roots of the plant, mycorrhizae is responsible for providing minerals in exchange for nutrients in a symbiotic relationship. This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness. The most successful strategy is not survival of the fittest by individual domination but rather co-operation through mutualistic dynamics. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: ObscureBean on April 24, 2015, 05:18:49 AM This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness. But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life). Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: TECSHARE on April 24, 2015, 07:12:33 AM This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness. But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life). Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce. It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: ObscureBean on April 24, 2015, 09:05:58 AM This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness. But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life). Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce. It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host. I'll have to respectfully disagree. I understand what you're saying and what you're saying is true but only at a superficial level, if you dig deeper you'll see that your idea breaks down. For one when somebody, knowingly does a 'good deed', it's a good deed according to that person. It's impossible for the doer to predict all possible ripple effects stemming from his action but he chooses to believe it is for the best. It is also impossible for the doer to know for certain the level of appreciation of the receiver. What you describe is how the world has always operated since the dawn of man but then it is possible that you believe the world is doing just fine as it is. Empathy can exist but only through complete innocence and without any observer or external awareness. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: TECSHARE on April 24, 2015, 11:24:24 AM This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness. But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life). Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce. It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host. I'll have to respectfully disagree. I understand what you're saying and what you're saying is true but only at a superficial level, if you dig deeper you'll see that your idea breaks down. For one when somebody, knowingly does a 'good deed', it's a good deed according to that person. It's impossible for the doer to predict all possible ripple effects stemming from his action but he chooses to believe it is for the best. It is also impossible for the doer to know for certain the level of appreciation of the receiver. What you describe is how the world has always operated since the dawn of man but then it is possible that you believe the world is doing just fine as it is. Empathy can exist but only through complete innocence and without any observer or external awareness. No one said anything about good deeds. I used the words symbiotic exchange. Either way you define it, it is not that complicated. If you treat some one shitty enough times, they will themselves start going around and being shitty too in order to pass that negativity on to some one else. If you treat people well, they start treating other people well too because they have positivity to share. If it makes some ones life better or easier some how in addition to your own, it is a success, end of story. The acting party need not be aware of every ripple of causation that follows to contribute to the overall positive state of humanity, thus relieving some negative pressure that some other asshole created by being selfish as a result causing it to balance out. Think of it like an aquifer. Some people just drink from it and use the water lowering the levels. If there weren't people processing the water to add water back into that aquifer, then everyone would go thirsty. Everyone who uses the water can try to conserve and use less, and some people can continue to just take more, but there is a limit to how much people can take before everything just breaks down, and eventually the takers will have nothing left to take along with the givers. Human happiness is a finite thing that is quantifiable and can be taken and given to people just like any other commodity. If you don't believe this to be true, just take a look at the entire marketing industry. It is designed to create malcontent in order to influence you to buy a product in order to relieve that negative tension. As far as your last two sentences, I don't know what it is that I said that some how communicates to you that I think the world is fine the way it is. I made no such conclusions or implications either way regarding that, this statement is completely of your creation. Your last statement is just complete nonsense and is untrue. I am talking about doing things that are positive for yourself as well as others, I didn't say anyone had to be completely innocent or saintly. Good actions don't erase bad actions or vice-versa. A mass murderer can wake up one day and realize the error of their ways and start doing things that are positive for everyone, it doesn't make them a saint, it just makes them aware of how their actions effect others and willing to do something about it. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: ObscureBean on April 24, 2015, 02:21:56 PM This is why empathy is a superior strategy to to selfishness. But empathy is selfishness. If you realize you are empathetic or enjoy being empathetic, it doesn't matter how noble/divine your actions/thoughts are, you're still just basking in the thing you like same as any other selfish person. Awareness is unfortunately (or fortunately) inextricably linked to humanity (and to a lesser degree other life). Not necessarily. Selfishness and symbiosis are not the same at all. At best selfishness is a part of symbiosis, but symbiosis is not purely selfishness. Selfishness usually takes the form of immediate thoughtless gratification at the expense of others and often themselves, resulting in net destruction of resources and overall quality of life for everyone involved long term. Symbiosis is an exchange of one cost which you can easily bear for a benefit which you can not easily produce. It is closer to an exchange than being purely selfish. I believe this is where the idea of Karma came from, because the people who came up with the concept understood that selfishness creates a net loss that ripples though society and spreads out adding to a negative ambient sociological state that eventually reaches back to the perpetrator of that selfishness. Symbiosis requires some kind of awareness if not intelligence. Every living thing is capable of being selfish and consuming, often even self destructively. Even bacteria eventually had to learn eventually that they can't keep living if they destroy their host. I'll have to respectfully disagree. I understand what you're saying and what you're saying is true but only at a superficial level, if you dig deeper you'll see that your idea breaks down. For one when somebody, knowingly does a 'good deed', it's a good deed according to that person. It's impossible for the doer to predict all possible ripple effects stemming from his action but he chooses to believe it is for the best. It is also impossible for the doer to know for certain the level of appreciation of the receiver. What you describe is how the world has always operated since the dawn of man but then it is possible that you believe the world is doing just fine as it is. Empathy can exist but only through complete innocence and without any observer or external awareness. No one said anything about good deeds. I used the words symbiotic exchange. Either way you define it, it is not that complicated. If you treat some one shitty enough times, they will themselves start going around and being shitty too in order to pass that negativity on to some one else. If you treat people well, they start treating other people well too because they have positivity to share. If it makes some ones life better or easier some how in addition to your own, it is a success, end of story. The acting party need not be aware of every ripple of causation that follows to contribute to the overall positive state of humanity, thus relieving some negative pressure that some other asshole created by being selfish as a result causing it to balance out. Think of it like an aquifer. Some people just drink from it and use the water lowering the levels. If there weren't people processing the water to add water back into that aquifer, then everyone would go thirsty. Everyone who uses the water can try to conserve and use less, and some people can continue to just take more, but there is a limit to how much people can take before everything just breaks down, and eventually the takers will have nothing left to take along with the givers. Human happiness is a finite thing that is quantifiable and can be taken and given to people just like any other commodity. If you don't believe this to be true, just take a look at the entire marketing industry. It is designed to create malcontent in order to influence you to buy a product in order to relieve that negative tension. As far as your last two sentences, I don't know what it is that I said that some how communicates to you that I think the world is fine the way it is. I made no such conclusions or implications either way regarding that, this statement is completely of your creation. Your last statement is just complete nonsense and is untrue. I am talking about doing things that are positive for yourself as well as others, I didn't say anyone had to be completely innocent or saintly. Good actions don't erase bad actions or vice-versa. A mass murderer can wake up one day and realize the error of their ways and start doing things that are positive for everyone, it doesn't make them a saint, it just makes them aware of how their actions effect others and willing to do something about it. I'm sorry but I do not have the patience nor energy to elaborate further. Suffice it to say that my response addresses every single challenge you brought up in your comment. And as for your last comment well everything you talk about can still be resolved from my previous comment. However if you honestly think I am wrong then I most probably am. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 24, 2015, 02:30:17 PM And what if we could all one-up Jeremy England here withing this thread? ;) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: cryptodevil on April 24, 2015, 02:36:16 PM In the most basic terms, Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment. Wut? Natural selection isn't intentional, it is the end result of erroneous gene mutation on replication! Well-adapted organisms do not evolve 'in order to . . .' anything, they evolve as a by-product of gene mutation on replication resulting in the offspring of the organism possessing a slightly different characteristic which *may* or may not, prove to work in its favour in terms of surviving long enough to create more offspring with the same genetic change, only a number of those will have offspring which, while they carry the same genes, could end up mutating further or in a different way as well as the mutation they received from their parent organism which, also, may serve to better allow them to survive long enough to procreate. If the mutations better serve the organism in the environment it is in, then it will have a better chance of out-surviving the organisms which don't carry the mutations. There is no 'intent'. <edit> Ahh I see now in the original article why he is intentionally misrepresenting evolution Quote For his part, England believes science can give us explanations and predictions, but it can never tell us what we should do with that information. That’s where, he says, the religious teachings come in. Indeed, the man who’s one-upping Darwin has spent the past 10 years painstakingly combing through the Torah, interpreting it word by word much the way he ponders the meaning of life. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 24, 2015, 02:42:31 PM In the most basic terms, Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment. Wut? Natural selection isn't intentional, it is the end result of erroneous gene mutation on replication! Well-adapted organisms do not evolve 'in order to . . .' anything, they evolve as a by-product of gene mutation on replication resulting in the offspring of the organism possessing a slightly different characteristic which *may* or may not, prove to work in its favour in terms of surviving long enough to create more offspring with the same genetic change, only a number of those will have offspring which, while they carry the same genes, could end up mutating further or in a different way as well as the mutation they received from their parent organism which, also, may serve to better allow them to survive long enough to procreate. If the mutations better serve the organism in the environment it is in, then it will have a better chance of out-surviving the organisms which don't carry the mutations. There is no 'intent'. I see. "Intent" would suggest an "intelligent design". Am I right or... Am I right? Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: cryptodevil on April 24, 2015, 02:46:50 PM I see. "Intent" would suggest an "intelligent design". Am I right or... Am I right? Well the author intentionally misrepresented evolution, so he used his intelligence to design a falsehood and try and pass it off as a fact. So there's *an* intelligent design example. Evolution isn't. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 24, 2015, 02:55:09 PM I see. "Intent" would suggest an "intelligent design". Am I right or... Am I right? Well the author intentionally misrepresented evolution, so he used his intelligence to design a falsehood and try and pass it off as a fact. So there's *an* intelligent design example. Evolution isn't. Is Evolution a byproduct of the fundamental forces pushing stuff around randomly, stuff that would become eventually sentient? Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: cryptodevil on April 24, 2015, 03:35:05 PM No, evolution applies to genetic mutation on replication in an organism.
Chemical elements do not evolve, they are formed. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: BADecker on April 24, 2015, 03:37:01 PM The problem with this whole idea is, "just the right conditions" is so extremely complex relative to entropy that it will never happen.
:) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 24, 2015, 03:50:31 PM The problem with this whole idea is, "just the right conditions" is so extremely complex relative to entropy that it will never happen. :) Chemical elements do not evolve, they are formed. Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course... 8) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: cryptodevil on April 24, 2015, 04:48:34 PM Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course... You appear to be heading towards the 'Goldilocks fallacy'. I suggest you consider reading up on the difference between Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry and, once done, consider the truly huge numbers involved, in terms of molecular formation of inorganic matter which you surely couldn't disagree with it being the result of environmental conditions because, after all, the immediate environmental conditions of temperature and pressure are exactly how new chemical compounds are formed. So, in that you can't dispute how inorganic compounds are formed, because after all they don't evolve, they are formed, you can then consider the number one reason behind the prevalence of the sheer range of organic compounds that exist, namely, Carbon. Carbon is the single biggest reason for the creation of more complex organic molecules, simply because it bonds with fucking everything! So, now you have organic compounds BEING FORMED, not evolving, as a result of temperatures and pressures in the immediate environment, plus carbon causing all kinds of compounds to stick together and bond to create more complex molecules. Now, please go back to the numbers I mentioned before, the really, REALLY, fucking big numbers of interactions and environmental conditions, plus time, that non-organic and organic compounds are forming in. So we have much more complex organic chemistry being formed, such as: Quote Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids. Now, before we go further, would you be willing to agree that the step from simple organic compounds to complex organic compounds, as above, is not unreasonable to accept as being the result of environmental conditions forming these compounds? Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 24, 2015, 06:19:26 PM Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course... You appear to be heading towards the 'Goldilocks fallacy'. I suggest you consider reading up on the difference between Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry and, once done, consider the truly huge numbers involved, in terms of molecular formation of inorganic matter which you surely couldn't disagree with it being the result of environmental conditions because, after all, the immediate environmental conditions of temperature and pressure are exactly how new chemical compounds are formed. So, in that you can't dispute how inorganic compounds are formed, because after all they don't evolve, they are formed, you can then consider the number one reason behind the prevalence of the sheer range of organic compounds that exist, namely, Carbon. Carbon is the single biggest reason for the creation of more complex organic molecules, simply because it bonds with fucking everything! So, now you have organic compounds BEING FORMED, not evolving, as a result of temperatures and pressures in the immediate environment, plus carbon causing all kinds of compounds to stick together and bond to create more complex molecules. Now, please go back to the numbers I mentioned before, the really, REALLY, fucking big numbers of interactions and environmental conditions, plus time, that non-organic and organic compounds are forming in. So we have much more complex organic chemistry being formed, such as: Quote Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids. Now, before we go further, would you be willing to agree that the step from simple organic compounds to complex organic compounds, as above, is not unreasonable to accept as being the result of environmental conditions forming these compounds? Sure. Why not. I am sure everything you say is true... I don't know why we have a universe who created a set of organic materials and a set of inorganic materials. I am part of this universe, and I am a result of this universe. I don't get a need for the universe to create Evolution. Your position is "there is no need, no intent, just billions of years of random accidents". As long as I can still wonder your position is fine with me. I never argue with cops... :) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Tusk on April 24, 2015, 06:32:13 PM Quote Increased awareness of the environment is the key to a more successful survival. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said, “Evolution [is] ever more perfect eyes in a world in which there is always more to see." He called this the Law of ComplexityConsciousness and said, "Evolution proceeds in the direction of increasing complexity which is accompanied by a corresponding rise in consciousness." Fractal Evolution "We are all interdependent hordes of livingon and beinglivedonbeings in a great partnership of evolution together to share information and perception to create a community of cells.” Lewis Thomas, The Lives of the Cell, By using the work of cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, former professor at Stanford University, I will show that the patterns of evolution are not created by chance. They are based upon a fractal configuration of nature. Lipton and others, say that evolution is a twostep process going from the One to the Many. This progresses in ongoing levels of development: from cell to multicellular organism and into social organizations. First Lipton defines evolution as “ the gaining of greater awareness. At the most fundamental physical level of a single cell we can see that awareness is defined by a protein like protuberance coming off the membrane called a receptor site. Receptors like sense organs are interfaces between the outer and inner environments. They survey the environment and feed information back to the rest of the cell. It lets the organism know that if something is harmful move away from it; or if something is beneficial move towards it. There is only one site for each stimulus in the environment and they can only exist in a single layer. The more receptor sites the greater the awareness of the environment and the more survival is assured. But there is a limit to the amount of receptor sites a cell can have, because if the membrane were to get too big it would rip open, the cytoplasm would pore out and the cell would die. There is however an overriding drive in the mechanism of life is to gain more awareness. But how could a cell membrane of limited size increase awareness? The inventive novelty of nature is seen in this first steps of evolution, which is a complete departure from Darwinian theory: Simple cells, having no internal structures, grouped themselves together to form colonies to increase their collective awareness. The naturalist Luther Burbank hinting towards the idea of synergy in the early part of the 20th century said: “When simple cells joined together, they exhibited organizing forces in new directions which were impossible for individual cells.” The second step in this fractal evolution was even more revolutionary: the many cells of the colony merged in singularity; the membrane folded inwards to increase receptor capacity. In other words the cells incorporated. Different cells specialized in a certain types of awareness and formed organelles, little organs inside the cell wall. Organelles have their own DNA and small membranes with receptors that encase their operations within their own cell wall. This created a new oneness in the form of a complex single cell, known as eukaryotic cells. On the cellular level the survival of the group became more important than the survival of the individual. The next development was to go from a single eukaryote to many grouped together to form another level of complexity; and eventually create the single a multicellular organism. And life proceeded from many to one to many, etc... The Earth Membrane and Humanity "Viewed from space, the astonishing thing about the earth is it aliveness. Aloft and floating, it lives beneath a moist gleaming membrane of bright blues swirling whites. It takes a membrane to be able to hold out against equilibrium, strive against entropy and filter and maintain perception." ~ Lewis Thomas In 1830, Francis Galton, a biologist and a relative of Charles Darwin, wrote: "Our part in the universe may be analogous to the cells in an organized body and our personality may be essentially elements of an immortal and cosmic mind." In 1993, Lipton said, “Humans are the functional equivalent of the glycoproteins [receptors] on the surface of the membrane of this giant cell [the earth]. We are the receptors and effectors that are capable of responding to the universe's signal and effecting change for the planet.” I find the above to be insightful and agree we tend to try isolate things and view them as separate islands or silos when in fact everything is deeply connected and is merely varied expressions of complexity. Here two examples Firstly: We lead to believe that gravity is constant and now take it for granted when its not. Quote (Phys.org)—Newton's gravitational constant, G, has been measured about a dozen times over the last 40 years, but the results have varied by much more than would be expected due to random and systematic errors. Now scientists have found that the measured G values oscillate over time like a sine wave with a period of 5.9 years. It's not G itself that is varying by this much, they propose, but more likely something else is affecting the measurements. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html)As a clue to what this "something else" is, the scientists note that the 5.9-year oscillatory period of the measured G values correlates almost perfectly with the 5.9-year oscillatory period of Earth's rotation rate, as determined by recent Length of Day (LOD) measurements. Although the scientists do not claim to know what causes the G/LOD correlation, they cautiously suggest that the "least unlikely" explanation may involve circulating currents in the Earth's core. The changing currents may modify Earth's rotational inertia, affecting LOD, and be accompanied by density variations, affecting G. The scientists, John D. Anderson, retired from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and coauthors, have published a paper on the correlation between the measurements of Newton's gravitational constant and the length of day in a recent issue of EPL. As the scientists explained, the main point of the paper is the finding that, while the measured G values do vary, they do so in a predictable way. "Once a surprising 5.9-year periodicity is taken into account, most laboratory measurements of G are consistent, and are within one-sigma experimental error limits," Anderson told Phys.org. Secondly: Researchers find the genome of the cultivated sweet potato has bacterial DNA Quote (Phys.org)—A team of researchers with members from Belgium, China, Peru and the U.S. has found evidence of bacterial DNA in the genome of the cultivated sweet potato. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes their findings as an example of a naturally occurring transgenic food crop. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-genome-cultivated-sweet-potato-bacterial.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-04-genome-cultivated-sweet-potato-bacterial.html)In modern times, scientists have created what are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), where plants or animals are modified to suit the particular needs of people in a certain region—to allow corn to grow in a dry climate for example. One common method of creating GMOs is to use bacteria that have been found able to modify the genes of a host as a carrier agent. GMOs have been met with suspicion in many parts of the world with some places banning them outright. Now, in this new effort, the researchers have found an example of a natural GMO that people have been eating for thousands of years: the sweet potato. Sweet potatoes have been growing wild in South America for thousands of years—over time, they were cultivated by people, and have since become a popular food in many parts of the world. But now it appears that a type of bacteria similar to the kind used by modern scientists to create many GMOs found its way naturally to cultivated sweet potatoes many generations ago and modified its DNA. To make this discovery, the researchers collected 291 sweet potato samples from cultivated sources across the globe along with nine wild sources and subjected them all to DNA analysis—they found that all of the cultivated potatoes carried at least two stretches of Agrobacterium DNA, while the wild species carried one. Their findings suggest the transfer of DNA to the potatoes occurred a long time ago, before they were carried to and grown in other parts of the world. Leaving aside the moral efficacy of GMO, the point I want to make is when you really look deeply into the universe everything is connected and evolving where one thing begins or ends is not a so easily distinguishable. The Universe is alive. It is fractal kaleidoscope of emerging cycles all interrelated and influencing one another. Or as B. Fuller so aptly described it, Quote Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 24, 2015, 11:40:26 PM Quote Increased awareness of the environment is the key to a more successful survival. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said, “Evolution [is] ever more perfect eyes in a world in which there is always more to see." He called this the Law of ComplexityConsciousness and said, "Evolution proceeds in the direction of increasing complexity which is accompanied by a corresponding rise in consciousness." Fractal Evolution "We are all interdependent hordes of livingon and beinglivedonbeings in a great partnership of evolution together to share information and perception to create a community of cells.” Lewis Thomas, The Lives of the Cell, By using the work of cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, former professor at Stanford University, I will show that the patterns of evolution are not created by chance. They are based upon a fractal configuration of nature. Lipton and others, say that evolution is a twostep process going from the One to the Many. This progresses in ongoing levels of development: from cell to multicellular organism and into social organizations. First Lipton defines evolution as “ the gaining of greater awareness. At the most fundamental physical level of a single cell we can see that awareness is defined by a protein like protuberance coming off the membrane called a receptor site. Receptors like sense organs are interfaces between the outer and inner environments. They survey the environment and feed information back to the rest of the cell. It lets the organism know that if something is harmful move away from it; or if something is beneficial move towards it. There is only one site for each stimulus in the environment and they can only exist in a single layer. The more receptor sites the greater the awareness of the environment and the more survival is assured. But there is a limit to the amount of receptor sites a cell can have, because if the membrane were to get too big it would rip open, the cytoplasm would pore out and the cell would die. There is however an overriding drive in the mechanism of life is to gain more awareness. But how could a cell membrane of limited size increase awareness? The inventive novelty of nature is seen in this first steps of evolution, which is a complete departure from Darwinian theory: Simple cells, having no internal structures, grouped themselves together to form colonies to increase their collective awareness. The naturalist Luther Burbank hinting towards the idea of synergy in the early part of the 20th century said: “When simple cells joined together, they exhibited organizing forces in new directions which were impossible for individual cells.” The second step in this fractal evolution was even more revolutionary: the many cells of the colony merged in singularity; the membrane folded inwards to increase receptor capacity. In other words the cells incorporated. Different cells specialized in a certain types of awareness and formed organelles, little organs inside the cell wall. Organelles have their own DNA and small membranes with receptors that encase their operations within their own cell wall. This created a new oneness in the form of a complex single cell, known as eukaryotic cells. On the cellular level the survival of the group became more important than the survival of the individual. The next development was to go from a single eukaryote to many grouped together to form another level of complexity; and eventually create the single a multicellular organism. And life proceeded from many to one to many, etc... The Earth Membrane and Humanity "Viewed from space, the astonishing thing about the earth is it aliveness. Aloft and floating, it lives beneath a moist gleaming membrane of bright blues swirling whites. It takes a membrane to be able to hold out against equilibrium, strive against entropy and filter and maintain perception." ~ Lewis Thomas In 1830, Francis Galton, a biologist and a relative of Charles Darwin, wrote: "Our part in the universe may be analogous to the cells in an organized body and our personality may be essentially elements of an immortal and cosmic mind." In 1993, Lipton said, “Humans are the functional equivalent of the glycoproteins [receptors] on the surface of the membrane of this giant cell [the earth]. We are the receptors and effectors that are capable of responding to the universe's signal and effecting change for the planet.” I find the above to be insightful and agree we tend to try isolate things and view them as separate islands or silos when in fact everything is deeply connected and is merely varied expressions of complexity. Here two examples Firstly: We lead to believe that gravity is constant and now take it for granted when its not. Quote (Phys.org)—Newton's gravitational constant, G, has been measured about a dozen times over the last 40 years, but the results have varied by much more than would be expected due to random and systematic errors. Now scientists have found that the measured G values oscillate over time like a sine wave with a period of 5.9 years. It's not G itself that is varying by this much, they propose, but more likely something else is affecting the measurements. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html)As a clue to what this "something else" is, the scientists note that the 5.9-year oscillatory period of the measured G values correlates almost perfectly with the 5.9-year oscillatory period of Earth's rotation rate, as determined by recent Length of Day (LOD) measurements. Although the scientists do not claim to know what causes the G/LOD correlation, they cautiously suggest that the "least unlikely" explanation may involve circulating currents in the Earth's core. The changing currents may modify Earth's rotational inertia, affecting LOD, and be accompanied by density variations, affecting G. The scientists, John D. Anderson, retired from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and coauthors, have published a paper on the correlation between the measurements of Newton's gravitational constant and the length of day in a recent issue of EPL. As the scientists explained, the main point of the paper is the finding that, while the measured G values do vary, they do so in a predictable way. "Once a surprising 5.9-year periodicity is taken into account, most laboratory measurements of G are consistent, and are within one-sigma experimental error limits," Anderson told Phys.org. Secondly: Researchers find the genome of the cultivated sweet potato has bacterial DNA Quote (Phys.org)—A team of researchers with members from Belgium, China, Peru and the U.S. has found evidence of bacterial DNA in the genome of the cultivated sweet potato. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes their findings as an example of a naturally occurring transgenic food crop. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-genome-cultivated-sweet-potato-bacterial.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-04-genome-cultivated-sweet-potato-bacterial.html)In modern times, scientists have created what are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), where plants or animals are modified to suit the particular needs of people in a certain region—to allow corn to grow in a dry climate for example. One common method of creating GMOs is to use bacteria that have been found able to modify the genes of a host as a carrier agent. GMOs have been met with suspicion in many parts of the world with some places banning them outright. Now, in this new effort, the researchers have found an example of a natural GMO that people have been eating for thousands of years: the sweet potato. Sweet potatoes have been growing wild in South America for thousands of years—over time, they were cultivated by people, and have since become a popular food in many parts of the world. But now it appears that a type of bacteria similar to the kind used by modern scientists to create many GMOs found its way naturally to cultivated sweet potatoes many generations ago and modified its DNA. To make this discovery, the researchers collected 291 sweet potato samples from cultivated sources across the globe along with nine wild sources and subjected them all to DNA analysis—they found that all of the cultivated potatoes carried at least two stretches of Agrobacterium DNA, while the wild species carried one. Their findings suggest the transfer of DNA to the potatoes occurred a long time ago, before they were carried to and grown in other parts of the world. Leaving aside the moral efficacy of GMO, the point I want to make is when you really look deeply into the universe everything is connected and evolving where one thing begins or ends is not a so easily distinguishable. The Universe is alive. It is fractal kaleidoscope of emerging cycles all interrelated and influencing one another. Or as B. Fuller so aptly described it, Quote Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. Rupert Sheldrake on Constants of Nature (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HhGInfjPWA) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: BADecker on April 25, 2015, 12:39:11 AM The only thing that Jeremy England might have that is different than before is a lot of chemistry. The whole idea has always been that one way or another "stuff" got together and made life.
So far, in everyday life, we see too much entropy to figure out where the complexity comes from. Nothing has changed with England, except a twist as to how we look at things. Not only do we NOT know that basic Darwinism happened. But we don't even have a plausible step-by-step method by which it might have been able to have happened. It's all just speculation - just talk. :) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: BADecker on April 25, 2015, 12:49:15 AM .... Now take England’s simulation of an opera singer who holds a crystal glass and sings at a certain pitch. Instead of shattering, England predicts that over time, the atoms will rearrange themselves to better absorb the energy the singer’s voice projects, essentially protecting the glass’s livelihood. So how’s a glass distinct from, say, a plankton-type organism that rearranges it self over several generations? Does that make glass a living organism? ..... And over time, the molecules in beer get worse, to protect the beer. Smart Beer! And over time, a tomato rearranges it's atoms to become unattractive to people. Smart Tomatos! And over time, newspapers rearrange themselves such that their content is less interesting than the Internet. Obviously this is the work of... Smart Trees! Funny. Evolution at its finest. Intelligent design. Natural selection. If we find out that everything is alive, even the inorganics, and that more complex life is only groupings of less complex life, then we will really have to focus on what consciousness is. :) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: BADecker on April 25, 2015, 12:51:53 AM IN GOD I TRUST, the rest I don't care, you waste your time, enjoy the Earth and everything encompassing it... the rest... illusion, disillusion, waste of time, waste of love, waste of happiness, waste of ;D. But it is something to do. These folks get paid. Their pay comes from grants made available through taxation of those of us who are trying to enjoy life. :) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 25, 2015, 03:21:02 AM IN GOD I TRUST, the rest I don't care, you waste your time, enjoy the Earth and everything encompassing it... the rest... illusion, disillusion, waste of time, waste of love, waste of happiness, waste of ;D. But it is something to do. These folks get paid. Their pay comes from grants made available through taxation of those of us who are trying to enjoy life. :) Life? Most here are inorganic bots. Some more than others, but with an obvious need of re calibrating their coherent syntax processor, within their grammatical construction sub routine... 8) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: cryptodevil on April 25, 2015, 07:33:33 AM Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course... You appear to be heading towards the 'Goldilocks fallacy'. I suggest you consider reading up on the difference between Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry and, once done, consider the truly huge numbers involved, in terms of molecular formation of inorganic matter which you surely couldn't disagree with it being the result of environmental conditions because, after all, the immediate environmental conditions of temperature and pressure are exactly how new chemical compounds are formed. So, in that you can't dispute how inorganic compounds are formed, because after all they don't evolve, they are formed, you can then consider the number one reason behind the prevalence of the sheer range of organic compounds that exist, namely, Carbon. Carbon is the single biggest reason for the creation of more complex organic molecules, simply because it bonds with fucking everything! So, now you have organic compounds BEING FORMED, not evolving, as a result of temperatures and pressures in the immediate environment, plus carbon causing all kinds of compounds to stick together and bond to create more complex molecules. Now, please go back to the numbers I mentioned before, the really, REALLY, fucking big numbers of interactions and environmental conditions, plus time, that non-organic and organic compounds are forming in. So we have much more complex organic chemistry being formed, such as: Quote Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids. Now, before we go further, would you be willing to agree that the step from simple organic compounds to complex organic compounds, as above, is not unreasonable to accept as being the result of environmental conditions forming these compounds? Sure. Why not. I am sure everything you say is true... I don't know why we have a universe who created a set of organic materials and a set of inorganic materials. I am part of this universe, and I am a result of this universe. I don't get a need for the universe to create Evolution. Your position is "there is no need, no intent, just billions of years of random accidents". As long as I can still wonder your position is fine with me. I never argue with cops... :) Sure, you can wonder all you like, but isn't part of wondering also the satisfaction of understanding? What I am saying is that there is a progression of action/interaction for the formation of matter into more complex molecules, this isn't me saying it is true, it is the scientific process of objectively testing, observing, measuring. The whole point of science is not that you believe what you are told because some guy in a lab-coat tells you to believe it, the point is that ANYONE can independently perform the series of tests and measurements that gave the results which led to an hypothesis becoming a scientific theory. Multiple fields of study and experimentation then continue to support said theory, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it is always open to new data which may supersede what was previously understood. This is not, as theists like to imply, a weakness, it is the core strength of understanding through independent knowledge, as opposed to theist magical thinking and dogma which is simply pulled out of their almighty imagination. By the way, "billions of years of random accidents"? No, again your understanding is skewed. There are no 'accidents' because that would imply, again, intent gone awry. There is only action/reaction when it comes to the natural formation of elements and molecules. To suggest otherwise requires that *you* provide the data to support the notion of 'intent' because, as it currently stands, the natural state of the Universe doesn't require it so you would be electing to introduce something for which there is neither evidence nor need. As for the intellectually bankrupt BADecker who likes to repeatedly and insistently spout fallacious bullshit as though it were valid assertion, evolution through natural selection is the end result of the statistical survival rates of organisms based on genetic changes which naturally occur as part of the fact that genetic replication is not a flawless process. Copies are not always exact replicas, hence the introduction of new design aspects to the 'child' organism. What is so hard to understand? Now, back to the OP, the article begins by dishonestly implying intent, which causes the reader to view evolution the wrong way round, leaving them perceiving it as an intentional adaptation of organisms which, if it were true, would indeed be cause to ask how did the original intent to change come to be. But it isn't an intentional change, the organism doesn't choose to create genes with different structures, they just occur because the replication process is not able to create 100% copies 100% of the time, because of changing environmental conditions and interactions as that process is taking place. Quote Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment. The words 'in order to', require intent to be part of the process. By looking at evolution from the wrong direction, seeing, say bacteria being exposed to hostile conditions which immediately kill off a portion but which, over time, sees the bacteria genetics changing to create new elements to their structure which allow them to not only survive but thrive in the once-hostile environment, it appears as though the bacteria adapted to the new environment, that the evolutionary changes saw it replicating with different elements until a new design was found which stopped it from being killed off by the new environmental conditions it was placed in. That is how the OP's article needs evolution to be viewed in order to then continue on with the fallacious reasoning which allows it to reach a conclusion which met the researchers needs, namely, being able to crowbar religion into his 'science'. But the simple fact is, and this isn't me telling you to believe this, this is testable and objectively provable, evolution is the end result, not the beginning. For all the instances of genetic replication erroneously failing to create an identical copy but causing the new genetic design to contain an element which helps the organism to have a better chance of survival long enough to, itself, replicate, there are countless instances of the replication process creating erroneous design changes which do nothing to change the survival rate or, for that matter, serve to actually reduce the chances of the organism surviving long enough to replicate. The fact that erroneous replication also leads to the creation of genetic designs which are harmful to the organism means that there would be a far higher chance of that organism not surviving and, therefore, that erroneous design change is not continued on. The bacteria I spoke about previously which some would view as having adapted to its environment is not the same bacteria that started out, it is not one organism. It was the replication process which is constantly taking place which saw the 'old' genetic blueprint, the one which could not survive well in the hostile environment it was exposed to, causing new bacterial cells to be created which either could survive better or could not. The ones that could survive better went on to thrive in the new conditions. It was not one bacterial organism adapting, although when viewed from the wrong direction it might seem like it was. Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on April 25, 2015, 02:55:15 PM Yet something made that "stuff" into the first organism. With "just the right conditions" of course... You appear to be heading towards the 'Goldilocks fallacy'. I suggest you consider reading up on the difference between Organic Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry and, once done, consider the truly huge numbers involved, in terms of molecular formation of inorganic matter which you surely couldn't disagree with it being the result of environmental conditions because, after all, the immediate environmental conditions of temperature and pressure are exactly how new chemical compounds are formed. So, in that you can't dispute how inorganic compounds are formed, because after all they don't evolve, they are formed, you can then consider the number one reason behind the prevalence of the sheer range of organic compounds that exist, namely, Carbon. Carbon is the single biggest reason for the creation of more complex organic molecules, simply because it bonds with fucking everything! So, now you have organic compounds BEING FORMED, not evolving, as a result of temperatures and pressures in the immediate environment, plus carbon causing all kinds of compounds to stick together and bond to create more complex molecules. Now, please go back to the numbers I mentioned before, the really, REALLY, fucking big numbers of interactions and environmental conditions, plus time, that non-organic and organic compounds are forming in. So we have much more complex organic chemistry being formed, such as: Quote Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds composed of amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids. Now, before we go further, would you be willing to agree that the step from simple organic compounds to complex organic compounds, as above, is not unreasonable to accept as being the result of environmental conditions forming these compounds? Sure. Why not. I am sure everything you say is true... I don't know why we have a universe who created a set of organic materials and a set of inorganic materials. I am part of this universe, and I am a result of this universe. I don't get a need for the universe to create Evolution. Your position is "there is no need, no intent, just billions of years of random accidents". As long as I can still wonder your position is fine with me. I never argue with cops... :) Sure, you can wonder all you like, but isn't part of wondering also the satisfaction of understanding? What I am saying is that there is a progression of action/interaction for the formation of matter into more complex molecules, this isn't me saying it is true, it is the scientific process of objectively testing, observing, measuring. The whole point of science is not that you believe what you are told because some guy in a lab-coat tells you to believe it, the point is that ANYONE can independently perform the series of tests and measurements that gave the results which led to an hypothesis becoming a scientific theory. Multiple fields of study and experimentation then continue to support said theory, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it is always open to new data which may supersede what was previously understood. This is not, as theists like to imply, a weakness, it is the core strength of understanding through independent knowledge, as opposed to theist magical thinking and dogma which is simply pulled out of their almighty imagination. By the way, "billions of years of random accidents"? No, again your understanding is skewed. There are no 'accidents' because that would imply, again, intent gone awry. There is only action/reaction when it comes to the natural formation of elements and molecules. To suggest otherwise requires that *you* provide the data to support the notion of 'intent' because, as it currently stands, the natural state of the Universe doesn't require it so you would be electing to introduce something for which there is neither evidence nor need. As for the intellectually bankrupt BADecker who likes to repeatedly and insistently spout fallacious bullshit as though it were valid assertion, evolution through natural selection is the end result of the statistical survival rates of organisms based on genetic changes which naturally occur as part of the fact that genetic replication is not a flawless process. Copies are not always exact replicas, hence the introduction of new design aspects to the 'child' organism. What is so hard to understand? Now, back to the OP, the article begins by dishonestly implying intent, which causes the reader to view evolution the wrong way round, leaving them perceiving it as an intentional adaptation of organisms which, if it were true, would indeed be cause to ask how did the original intent to change come to be. But it isn't an intentional change, the organism doesn't choose to create genes with different structures, they just occur because the replication process is not able to create 100% copies 100% of the time, because of changing environmental conditions and interactions as that process is taking place. Quote Darwinism and the idea of natural selection tell us that well-adapted organisms evolve in order to survive and better reproduce in their environment. The words 'in order to', require intent to be part of the process. By looking at evolution from the wrong direction, seeing, say bacteria being exposed to hostile conditions which immediately kill off a portion but which, over time, sees the bacteria genetics changing to create new elements to their structure which allow them to not only survive but thrive in the once-hostile environment, it appears as though the bacteria adapted to the new environment, that the evolutionary changes saw it replicating with different elements until a new design was found which stopped it from being killed off by the new environmental conditions it was placed in. That is how the OP's article needs evolution to be viewed in order to then continue on with the fallacious reasoning which allows it to reach a conclusion which met the researchers needs, namely, being able to crowbar religion into his 'science'. But the simple fact is, and this isn't me telling you to believe this, this is testable and objectively provable, evolution is the end result, not the beginning. For all the instances of genetic replication erroneously failing to create an identical copy but causing the new genetic design to contain an element which helps the organism to have a better chance of survival long enough to, itself, replicate, there are countless instances of the replication process creating erroneous design changes which do nothing to change the survival rate or, for that matter, serve to actually reduce the chances of the organism surviving long enough to replicate. The fact that erroneous replication also leads to the creation of genetic designs which are harmful to the organism means that there would be a far higher chance of that organism not surviving and, therefore, that erroneous design change is not continued on. The bacteria I spoke about previously which some would view as having adapted to its environment is not the same bacteria that started out, it is not one organism. It was the replication process which is constantly taking place which saw the 'old' genetic blueprint, the one which could not survive well in the hostile environment it was exposed to, causing new bacterial cells to be created which either could survive better or could not. The ones that could survive better went on to thrive in the new conditions. It was not one bacterial organism adapting, although when viewed from the wrong direction it might seem like it was. Sure, you can wonder all you like, but isn't part of wondering also the satisfaction of understanding? Yes. What I am saying is that there is a progression of action/interaction for the formation of matter into more complex molecules, this isn't me saying it is true, it is the scientific process of objectively testing, observing, measuring. The whole point of science is not that you believe what you are told because some guy in a lab-coat tells you to believe it, the point is that ANYONE can independently perform the series of tests and measurements that gave the results which led to an hypothesis becoming a scientific theory. Ok. I still do not have the satisfaction of understanding why "there is a progression of action/interaction for the formation of matter into more complex molecules..." The scientific answer is "because it is what it is". But why make more complex stuff when you can be 'happy' standing still and just be, just as in the state of the first 1/1000000000 second of the creation? Why evolve? That is why I was wondering if consciousness was just a byproduct of the fundamental forces or... If there was another force, maybe infinitely weaker than the forces we already know, that 'pushes and pushes' stuff to organized themselves into more and more complex stuff... The universe as a consciousness building machine that is powered by a fundamental I would call the Ineluctable Force... Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Tusk on April 25, 2015, 06:33:13 PM Rupert Sheldrake on Constants of Nature (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HhGInfjPWA) Yes a most refreshing, i'm not sure if you saw "Richard Dawkins Comes to Call" http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/richard-dawkins-comes-to-call (http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/richard-dawkins-comes-to-call) It clearly demonstrates how MSM has clear objectives in following its own beliefs rather than science If we only look under the same rocks we are only going to see the same bugs Mainstream Science/Media seems to suffer from some sort of schizophrenia, It will happily believes in the BIG BANG, yet fail to validate how the universe could have expanded in the fraction of a second defying the speed of light. Quote "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest. ." Terence McKennaIt will comfortably claim there is dark energy that is undetectable yet deny the possibility of Psi, despite evidence being put forward by Dean Radin. Isaac Newton having having written principia mathematica (mathematical principles of natural philosophy), devoted pretty much the rest of his time to Alchemy. I think it is safe to say that consciousness is the frontier of biological evolution. Up until recently collective consciousness was massaged and controlled in a hierarchical fashion but now that man and technology have merged, our collective consciousness is untethered to evolve in a fractal fashion, IMO a superior evolutionary process that is more aligned to nature. As long as we can maintain its independence. Through social media and the added power of crypto we have something that will hopefully evolve our individual and collective behaviour to becoming mature enough to handle the power we wield. What I find refreshing is that individuals tend to act responsibly and are able to adapt more readily to change, its sadly governments and institutions that tend to be the problem. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there is a lot that mainstream science has accomplished, but my biggest criticism is its too scared to look under new rocks preferring to stick to what it knows. Without failure nothing is learned, if you stop learning you stop growing and anything that is not growing is dying. As always dogma remains our biggest enemy. I'm encouraged by the ThunderboltsProject (the electric Universe)Thunderbolts of the Gods | Official Movie, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA) Its bringing a much needed multidisciplinary approach to cosmology that is helping expand our view of the universe. Some interesting aspects are The Electrochemistry of Comets with Dr. Franklin Anariba https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_NPKeE_afc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_NPKeE_afc) And the series of videos on Rosetta Mission are refreshing Rosetta Mission Update | First Science Papers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Wc1b-ONc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Wc1b-ONc) Rosetta Mission Update | 67P's Mysterious Water Production https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW7TZNP6fIA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW7TZNP6fIA) Title: Re: Jeremy England: The Man Who May One-Up Darwin Post by: Wilikon on May 01, 2015, 12:02:08 AM gene. They then watched as the cells aged prematurely, and found that the reason they became older so quickly had to do with how their DNA was packaged. In order to function properly, DNA is tightly twisted and wound into chromosomes that resemble a rope in the nucleus of cells. Only when the cell is ready to divide does the DNA unwrap itself, and even then, only in small segments at a time. In patients with Werner syndrome, the chromosomes are slightly messier, more loosely stuffed into the nuclei, and that leads to instability that pushes the cell to age more quickly. Belmonte discovered that the Werner gene regulates this chromosome stability. When he allowed the embryonic stem cells that were missing this gene to grow into cells that go on to become bone, muscle and more, he saw that these cells aged more quickly. “It’s clear that when you have alterations in [chromosome stability], the process of aging goes so quickly and so fast that it’s tempting to say, yes, this is the key process for driving aging,” says Belmonte. Even more exciting, when he analyzed a population of stem cells taken from the dental pulp of both younger and older people, he found that the older individuals, aged 58 to 72 years, had fewer genetic markers for the chromosome instability while the younger people aged seven to 26 years showed higher levels of these indicators. “What this study means is that this protein does not only work in a particular genetic disease, it works in all humans,” says Belmonte. “This mechanism is general for aging process.” Before it can be considered as the Fountain of Youth, however, Belmonte says new and better techniques need to be developed that can more specifically and safely alter the Werner gene in people, not just a culture dish of human cells. He also stresses that there may be other processes contributing to aging, and it’s not clear yet how important chromosome stability is compared to those factors. But, he says. “having technologies like this will allow us to determine how important each of these parameters are for aging.” And if the findings hold up, they could be first step toward finding a way to help cells, and eventually people, live longer. http://time.com/3841620/scientists-discover-the-secret-to-keeping-cells-young/ |
