Kylie's Pool Challenge

[coffee4u]

From AV's Pool Challenge thread...

​

Now, I looked at this and thought that the situation wasn't taking into account everything it should have. So I presented an alternative situation...

Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a third person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"

Is the third person right?

The trouble with this is we are dealing with 3 people here, whose motivations are unknown.
Never trust people to be completely 100% honest and never trust people to be 100% correct/ not fooled. These are the two wild cards in any situation where human beings have muddied the water, honestly and deception.

Why do you think scam centers manage to get people to hand over hundreds of dollars -because they can be very believable. Yet it was all a deception even though the person who was deceived felt it was genuine.


We don't trust people only God.

Romans 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”

So is the third person right in this situation? No idea.
They could be right
They could be wrong
They could have been deceived
They could be wanting to deceive.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am quoting the researchers themselves.
“remains elusive”
“ could have”
“ maybe”
So their hypothesis is to test a piece of conjecture to see whether the conjecture can be falsified.
An d they are the optimistic ones.
Some researchers see the problem getting harder the more you look.

Or in the chemistry world article
“ long way from understanding how it assembles”
“you don’t have that complexity that allows you to actually sustain.”
“sceptical that we can ever know”

And on the volcanic vents , cracks , you linked, what I said was spot on,
No protocells or precursors have been found , despite vents of all ages.
Why?
So a big piece of negative evidence.

You are plain wrong.
I have correctly classed it as the researchers do, conjecture.
The hypothesis validates the possibility of a dot. It does not decide if the track passes through the dot or how ( or if) it connects to other dots.

I am not against it. But it is a long way from a viable process. The irreducible complexity problem is clearly a problem.

You are welcome to your rose tinted glasses, I prefer science and evidence.
That states the model follows the evidence, not the other way round.

You are also too personal. I’m out.

You are just plain wrong.
From Genome Evolution from Random Ligation of RNAs of Autocatalytic Sets .. and don't tell me this is pure conjecture .. the title itself, as well as its publishing disclosure statement, declares its intention as being a testable hypothesis, (now having passed formal review), as distinct from your claims of pure conjecture.
The background.. for your edification:
You thus need to advance your understanding. The RNA world hypothesis has long since been updated, recognising the existing objectively sourced evidence for autocatalytic set self-replication.
So, now, for the experimental evidence:

.. and they already have been demonstrated as existing in the environment:
You are just plain wrong!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Somebody quoted wiki on protocells at me .
I responded to that. It conjectured geothermal origins,
But it’s all over the web. Has been for decades, The twin themes of:
1/ protocells
2/ geothermal vents, ponds , cracks etc.

This is what self sim linked.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2019.2045

I point out that the first time I saw something similar in new scientist was 50 years ago.
Plus ca change.
A recent chemistry world article reviewing protocells by a researcher named Mann said they are
“sceptical that we can ever know”
“ just hoping for a way to connect dots”
You will notice that is exactly my summary of it.
Interesting conjecture, interesting science. Conjecture none the less.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/feat...gap-from-chemistry-to-biology/4014886.article

My question was whether you had a citation for the assertion that, of the "thermal vents, fissures and pools distributed across the world and geological history", "none of them have evidence of protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents".

It seems to me that it's just another unsubstantiated claim - in fact, it's impossible to substantiate.

 

[Mountainmike]

My question was whether you had a citation for the assertion that, of the "thermal vents, fissures and pools distributed across the world and geological history", "none of them have evidence of protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents".

It seems to me that it's just another unsubstantiated claim - in fact, it's impossible to substantiate.

Read Sherlock Holmes.
The dog that did not bark.
The relevance is obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read Sherlock Holmes.
The dog that did not bark.
The relevance is obvious.

Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character with poor logic skills. As usual the logic skills of the character reflect the logic skills of the author.

 

[SelfSim]

So their hypothesis is to test a piece of conjecture to see whether the conjecture can be falsified.

No ..wrong again! This is how they conclude:

Some of the aspects of this hypothesis could be tested experimentally. For example, are any of the in vitro generated RNA ligase ribozymes able to generate random ligation products similar to protein-based ligases? This could be tested by providing the RNA ligase with a pool of random RNA oligomers, or longer ribozymes, followed by deep sequencing of the reaction. It could also be tested if the ribozymes of two different known RNA-based autocatalytic sets, when combined in one RNA molecule, retain their catalytic activities and can be used as a starting point for both autocatalytic sets.

All positive actions. Then their final statement:

These relatively simple experiments could provide further credence for the plausibility of the herein suggested hypothesis on the evolution of the protogenome.

Falsify?? .. Yeah right .. Not!

You are plain wrong.
I have correctly classed it as the researchers do, conjecture.
The hypothesis validates the possibility of a dot.

You are totally confused, aren't you?
What is it then .. a conjecture or an hypothesis? Your above words confirm your bewilderment!

It does not decide if the track passes through the dot or how ( or if) it connects to other dots.

The only thing an hypothesis does is lead towards more useful questions, testable classifications and perhaps onto useful, testable predictions.
Your 'dots' are just more models .. some are testable, some are not.

The irreducible complexity problem is clearly a problem.

Nope .. it never mentions any such thing.

You are welcome to your rose tinted glasses, I prefer science and evidence.

However, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of what defines science .. ie: the method.

That states the model follows the evidence, not the other way round.

Everything we perceive, once described, becomes a model. There are two types: testable and non testable. Eucharistic miracles remains an untestable one. It has no operationally objective definition.

You have zero evidence because you have zero objective tests, nor any working definition.

You are also too personal. I’m out.

You're out because you were wrong .. and cannot admit it .. just like so many others who masquerade as being 'scientific' thinkers but start out with untestably, believed-in 'true' posits.
The deceptiveness exacerbated by repeated assertive claims of what is and what isn't, accompanied by a lack of demonstrations in such approaches, is absolutely appalling ..

 

[Mountainmike]

You have faith in it. I get it. Otherwise nothing but conjecture.

Other than not knowing - what happened - where it happened - the conditions under which it happened - the critical steps along the way, you have a full house. Lol.

Protocell researchers in a chemistry world review are saying they will probably never know. Why do you have *confidence* they will??

A hypothesis that one step in the process cannot be falsified, is not a test of a hypothesis that either that step was part of the journey, or that it could have been part of the journey. It is an unconnected island. A dot. You are confusing the scale of what is being tested.

meanwhile all the fundamental questions remain unanswered.
Their are neither protocells nor immediate antecedents found near volcanic vents. That is far more of a conceptual barrier than you give it credit for, because of probabilities, as I indicated in a previous post.


Other plausibility researchers - with all their wit -are struggling to get Frankenstein protocells to work. They leave a trail of failures. Yet the belief is that it happened without a guiding designer. Where is the trail of failures being created in nature as a byproduct of chance? It is one of the problems of macro evolutinary steps. Where are the failures?

And so on. There are massive obstacles in the “ big picture”

It is just shoved in the past , and it is claimed the reason it no longer happens is something ( unspecified) changed. Ie no idea of the environment in which it occurred. Only that it was “ different”.

As I keep telling you it is interesting research .
Status conjecture.
I’ve been looking at it for 50 years .

it might even be true. But it’s a million miles from such a claim.

On the other hand there is real inexplicable cardiac flesh , with characteristics that cannot be a substitution fraud, some characteristics that defy normal pathology, originating in wafer. It’s happened many times, analysed on several continents. A forensic scientist, one of many who looked says it is credible evidence of creation. This is an “is” not a “ might be”. The evidential comparison is stark.

I tire of the insults. Since you cannot be civil , I’m out.

No ..wrong again! This is how they conclude:
All positive actions. Then their final statement:
Falsify?? .. Yeah right .. Not!
You are totally confused, aren't you?
What is it then .. a conjecture or an hypothesis? Your above words confirm your bewilderment!
The only thing an hypothesis does is lead towards more useful questions, testable classifications and perhaps onto useful, testable predictions.
Your 'dots' are just more models .. some are testable, some are not.
Nope .. it never mentions any such thing.
However, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of what defines science .. ie: the method.
Everything we perceive, once described, becomes a model. There are two types: testable and non testable. Eucharistic miracles remains an untestable one. It has no operationally objective definition.

You have zero evidence because you have zero objective tests, nor any working definition.
You're out because you were wrong .. and cannot admit it .. just like so many others who masquerade as being 'scientific' thinkers but start out with untestably, believed-in 'true' posits.
The deceptiveness exacerbated by repeated assertive claims of what is and what isn't, accompanied by a lack of demonstrations in such approaches, is absolutely appalling ..

 

[SelfSim]

.. I’m out.

Yet another evidenced mistruth. You keep posting that, yet you keep responding.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yet another evidenced mistruth. You keep posting that, yet you keep responding.

I had hoped the warning would result in civility. I always know when I am winning an argument, when the other side resort to insults.

A lesson in logic.
Here are some propositions.
1/ This process is how life started on earth.

2/ This is a process of how life may have started on earth . (it may be one way, it might not be the way)
3/ Here is/are a step(s) in the process of how life may have started on earth
4/Here is the kind of process of one of the steps on how life may have started on earth.
5/ Here are the conditions and places favourable to one or more of the processes

And evidence.
6/ Here is evidence of life starting and the circumstances under which it happened

7/ Here is evidence of one or more of the processes of 2/ -4/ actually having happened.

Only 1 is abiogenesis. The rest are conjecture propositions.

2-5 are conjecture. Plausibility statmements of increasing significance. Conjecture none the less.
So hypotheses or experiments related to 2-5 validate conjecture. They are not of of themselves proof of anything.

You do not have 1/ or 2/
Abiogenesis from soup Only has 3/ and 4/.
Worryingly 3/- 5/ have no evidence 7/ of intermediates.

There are Only attempts to explain why there is no evidence.
That is major problem for ever leaping even from 2./ to 1/ .
You are at best at 3/. No evidence 7/ even of that.

In so called eucharistiic miracles there is 6/.
Actual cold hard forensic evidence of life, that did not apparently come from a body or progressive small change, Many instances,of which several were analyzed, many independent teams. So not a rogue like cold fusion, or a conspiracy. It is not a substitution fraud since parts of it are unknown to pathology. Like white cells In vitro that should have lysed. Nuclear human DNA that won’t produce standard person identification sequences. But will produce mitichondrial types and groups.

It may not fit the model . But the model must fit evidence. Evidence does not have to fit the model. but it is evidence none the less.

Please use logic, not wishful thinking.
I keep telling you , I am not against it. But so far there is just conjecture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had hoped the warning would result in civility. I always know when I am winning an argument, when the other side resort to insults.

A lesson in logic.
Here are some propositions.
1/ This process is how life started on earth.

2/ This is a process of how life may have started on earth . (it may be one way, it might not be the way)
3/ Here is/are a step(s) in the process of how life may have started on earth
4/Here is the kind of process of one of the steps on how life may have started on earth.
5/ Here are the conditions and places favourable to one or more of the processes

And evidence.
6/ Here is evidence of life starting and the circumstances under which it happened

7/ Here is evidence of one or more of the processes of 2/ -4/ actually having happened.

Only 1 is abiogenesis. The rest are conjecture propositions.

2-5 are conjecture. Plausibility statmements of increasing significance. Conjecture none the less.
So hypotheses or experiments related to 2-5 validate conjecture. They are not of of themselves proof of anything.

You do not have 1/ or 2/
Abiogenesis from soup Only has 3/ and 4/.
Worryingly 3/- 5/ have no evidence 7/ of intermediates.
Only attempts to explain why there is no evidence.
That is major problem for ever leaping even from 2./ to 1/ . You are at best at 3/.

In so called eucharistiic miracles there is 6/.
Actual cold hard forensic evidence. Many instances, several analyzed, many independent teams. So not a rogue like cold fusion, or a conspiracy. It is not a fraud since parts of it are unknown to pathology.

It may not fit the model . But the model must fit evidence. Evidence does not have to fit the model. but it is evidence none the less.

Please use logic, not wishful thinking.
I keep telling you , I am not against it. But so far there is just conjecture.

Mike, you won't even discuss the concept of evidence. I do not think that you understand the concept at all..

Would you care to learn?

 

[Mountainmike]

Mike, you won't even discuss the concept of evidence. I do not think that you understand the concept at all..

Would you care to learn?

I’m happy with forensic pathologists definition thanks,
not sceptics anonymous / subduction zone definition on CF.

Lawrence , who examined and tested the so called Buenos airies miracle and the statue of Cochabamba says: “convincing evidence of creation” . He is an expert witness who gives evidence in criminal courts. He knows better than you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Read Sherlock Holmes.
The dog that did not bark.
The relevance is obvious.

I'll take that as a 'no' then. Another impossible claim you don't have evidence to support... again.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'll take that as a 'no' then. Another impossible claim you don't have evidence to support... again.

I have plenty of evidence:
For 50 years , since the first papers on protocells, people have studied volcanic vents , cracks , pools , and have studied the chemical composition of them as favourable to start of life or otherwise. The science is there to see. They comment on zinc and minerals.

I have enough faith in the scientific community to know they will have studied progression. What happens in the months, centuries and millennia afterwards , from oldest to the newest. Volcanologists study the development of life on recent volcanoes.

Not ONE of them mentioned a protocell, or potential genomic material, or other macro antecedents of a cell. It would be all over Nature magazine if they had.
Instead they all talk of minerals and small molecules. That is the evidence of what pools /vents/ cracks contain.

For the one who found and studied protocells or antecedents there would have been a best selling book and could even have been a Nobel prize.

The dog did not bark.

The claim there is no protocell or substantial antecedent to life in pools is not an "impossible claim". It is the logical consequence of all that have studied what is in pools, vents and cracks of all ages presently active or warm. No protocells. Which gives you another problem. Most volcanos are young in geological time. They do not last long, whether that be millenia tens or hundreds or thousands of millenia. By definition there is a representative selection of volcanos and vents at every time in geological history as tectonic plates pull apart and crash into each other. So life had to get a move on, before each window closed.

On the more general point .
You won’t look at the evidence , you will never know.
I suggested in “After” the story of a medic who tried to develop the science of NDE , not just the anecdotes. The science he did. Lots of references. You won’t even spend 10 for an education. Sad.

 

[Neogaia777]

Here was my "pool challenge" recently...

Did you really choose God…

God Bless!

 

[Mr Laurier]

Waiting

 

[SelfSim]

I had hoped the warning would result in civility.

Civility is a product of respect. Respect is earned. Earning respect starts out by displaying integrity (completeness and wholeness) and doing what you say you're going to do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have plenty of evidence:
For 50 years , since the first papers on protocells, people have studied volcanic vents , cracks , pools , and have studied the chemical composition of them as favourable to start of life or otherwise. The science is there to see. They comment on zinc and minerals.

Have they studied every thermal vent, fissure, and pool across the world and through geological history looking for "protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents" and published a paper saying they'd found none?

I thought not.

Volcanologists study the development of life on recent volcanoes.

Do they?

What Does a Volcanologist Do?
Volcanologists collect data about volcanic activity and then study these findings. Typically they will travel to a location where a dormant or active volcano resides to collect samples. They then examine this data in a laboratory, usually for one of three purposes: to understand why volcanoes behave, to understand how volcanoes work, and to predict future eruptions for the safety of local populations. Some will also study the geological history of a particular volcano.​

Not ONE of them mentioned a protocell, or potential genomic material, or other macro antecedents of a cell. It would be all over Nature magazine if they had.

It certainly would, seeing as biology is not a part of volcanology...

The claim there is no protocell or substantial antecedent to life in pools is not an "impossible claim". It is the logical consequence of all that have studied what is in pools, vents and cracks of all ages presently active or warm. No protocells.

It's a 'black swan' problem - it would take only one example to falsify it. I can guarantee you no one has done an exhaustive search of a single thermal vent, fissure, or pool looking for "protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents", let alone every thermal vent, fissure, and pool "across the world and geological history". Firstly, because it is currently impossible to do an exhaustive search of that kind. Secondly, because they don't know exactly what they're looking for - extracellular lipid vesicles (exosomes, microvesicles, etc.) are released by many cells, so while there's life around, you'll find such vesicles - if they last long enough. Thirdly, because - as has been mentioned previously - where there's extant life, such material is fodder.

On the more general point .
You won’t look at the evidence , you will never know.
I suggested in “After” the story of a medic who tried to develop the science of NDE , not just the anecdotes. The science he did. Lots of references.

So post some of those references.

As I said, I've spent considerable time on OBEs and NDEs without finding any good evidence. Lots of unverifiable stories, no good evidence. The stories that had enough factual material to be followed up were either shown to be flawed or could not be verified.

I've followed Dr Sam Parnia's AWARE studies for the last 15 years - the only well-controlled scientific studies I'm aware(!) of on the topic, and they've turned up nothing significant (despite Dr. Parnia's early enthusiasm for the idea of extracorporeal consciousness).

If you have verifiable evidence of an NDE or OBE leading to 'impossible knowledge', give me a reference to the information about it and I'll check it out.

 

[Astrid]

Have they studied every thermal vent, fissure, and pool across the world and through geological history looking for "protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents" and published a paper saying they'd found none?

I thought not.

Do they?

What Does a Volcanologist Do?
Volcanologists collect data about volcanic activity and then study these findings. Typically they will travel to a location where a dormant or active volcano resides to collect samples. They then examine this data in a laboratory, usually for one of three purposes: to understand why volcanoes behave, to understand how volcanoes work, and to predict future eruptions for the safety of local populations. Some will also study the geological history of a particular volcano.​

It certainly would, seeing as biology is not a part of volcanology...

It's a 'black swan' problem - it would take only one example to falsify it. I can guarantee you no one has done an exhaustive search of a single thermal vent, fissure, or pool looking for "protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents", let alone every thermal vent, fissure, and pool "across the world and geological history". Firstly, because it is currently impossible to do an exhaustive search of that kind. Secondly, because they don't know exactly what they're looking for - extracellular lipid vesicles (exosomes, microvesicles, etc.) are released by many cells, so while there's life around, you'll find such vesicles - if they last long enough. Thirdly, because - as has been mentioned previously - where there's extant life, such material is fodder.

So post some of those references.

As I said, I've spent considerable time on OBEs and NDEs without finding any good evidence. Lots of unverifiable stories, no good evidence. The stories that had enough factual material to be followed up were either shown to be flawed or could not be verified.

I've followed Dr Sam Parnia's AWARE studies for the last 15 years - the only well-controlled scientific studies I'm aware(!) of on the topic, and they've turned up nothing significant (despite Dr. Parnia's early enthusiasm for the idea of extracorporeal consciousness).

If you have verifiable evidence of an NDE or OBE leading to 'impossible knowledge', give me a reference to the information about it and I'll check it out.

" a little less talk, and a lot more action"

 

[Astrid]

Have they studied every thermal vent, fissure, and pool across the world and through geological history looking for "protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents" and published a paper saying they'd found none?

I thought not.

Do they?

What Does a Volcanologist Do?
Volcanologists collect data about volcanic activity and then study these findings. Typically they will travel to a location where a dormant or active volcano resides to collect samples. They then examine this data in a laboratory, usually for one of three purposes: to understand why volcanoes behave, to understand how volcanoes work, and to predict future eruptions for the safety of local populations. Some will also study the geological history of a particular volcano.​

It certainly would, seeing as biology is not a part of volcanology...

It's a 'black swan' problem - it would take only one example to falsify it. I can guarantee you no one has done an exhaustive search of a single thermal vent, fissure, or pool looking for "protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents", let alone every thermal vent, fissure, and pool "across the world and geological history". Firstly, because it is currently impossible to do an exhaustive search of that kind. Secondly, because they don't know exactly what they're looking for - extracellular lipid vesicles (exosomes, microvesicles, etc.) are released by many cells, so while there's life around, you'll find such vesicles - if they last long enough. Thirdly, because - as has been mentioned previously - where there's extant life, such material is fodder.
t.

Its clear your friend has not spent any time looking through a microscope.
I imagine you at least took a microbiology class.
All those specs and globules and bits of this and that...

Trillions of specks to examine at great expense, looking for who even
knows what!

No, this is not being done in a Quest for Protolife.

 

[Mountainmike]

It’s pretty pointless responding to posts that contain such non sequiturs , sophistry and straw men.

I can post plenty of links to papers that show what they DID find.
Which speaks volumes about what they didn’t find!

Take volcanic lakes in Colorado that contained only a single species of bacteria. Papers on lack of bacterial diversity in ponds in Costa Rica. Volcanic pools in New Zealand with all the chemical ion balances.

So strange they analysed it all and fail to mention the discovery that would get them Nobel prizes, best selling books , and a meal ticket on the science speaking tours for life.

The dog did not bark.

The idea of geothermal origin of protocels has been around for 50 years. The generic idea that life started there I recollect was mentioned even in Darwin’s time. Chemistry and biology of the pools has been researched for a century. Outside the world of cf scientists are not stupid! They found Nothing to report. Because of that other academics dispute the conjecture of life starting there.

Theb can you imagine nature receiving or publishing the paper you propose that says , “we looked, we found nothing whatsoever of interest anywhere ”.

Your post is a sophist defence mechanism against the search for truth, not an embrace of it.

Then…. Real science is multidisciplinary. It doesn’t have clean boundaries outside the classroom, The biologists who learn volcanology. The vulcanologists who learn some biology. Some chemists have to learn both. My reference to vulcanologists was reference to scientists studying those locations, not a specialism obviously.

I cannot be bothered responding to nit picking.

Have they studied every thermal vent, fissure, and pool across the world and through geological history looking for "protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents" and published a paper saying they'd found none?

I thought not.

Do they?

What Does a Volcanologist Do?
Volcanologists collect data about volcanic activity and then study these findings. Typically they will travel to a location where a dormant or active volcano resides to collect samples. They then examine this data in a laboratory, usually for one of three purposes: to understand why volcanoes behave, to understand how volcanoes work, and to predict future eruptions for the safety of local populations. Some will also study the geological history of a particular volcano.​

It certainly would, seeing as biology is not a part of volcanology...

It's a 'black swan' problem - it would take only one example to falsify it. I can guarantee you no one has done an exhaustive search of a single thermal vent, fissure, or pool looking for "protocells, antecedents to them or postcedents", let alone every thermal vent, fissure, and pool "across the world and geological history". Firstly, because it is currently impossible to do an exhaustive search of that kind. Secondly, because they don't know exactly what they're looking for - extracellular lipid vesicles (exosomes, microvesicles, etc.) are released by many cells, so while there's life around, you'll find such vesicles - if they last long enough. Thirdly, because - as has been mentioned previously - where there's extant life, such material is fodder.

So post some of those references.

As I said, I've spent considerable time on OBEs and NDEs without finding any good evidence. Lots of unverifiable stories, no good evidence. The stories that had enough factual material to be followed up were either shown to be flawed or could not be verified.

I've followed Dr Sam Parnia's AWARE studies for the last 15 years - the only well-controlled scientific studies I'm aware(!) of on the topic, and they've turned up nothing significant (despite Dr. Parnia's early enthusiasm for the idea of extracorporeal consciousness).

If you have verifiable evidence of an NDE or OBE leading to 'impossible knowledge', give me a reference to the information about it and I'll check it out.