A Pondering of the Peculiar (4)

[Wiccan_Child]

Good God this is like battle of the titans. Where's my popcorn?!

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution makes no claims about the origins of life. As far as evolution is concerned, god could have seeded the earth with microbes at some point, evolution is neither meant to challenge the existence of deities nor does it, only interpreting life as unchanging. Biological life isn't as complex as you think either; cell membranes (which are basically layers of lipids), the proteins and nucleic acids needed for life, all will arrange themselves in useful ways outside of a living system without any tampering.

That's not what people say:

" However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."

"The origin and early evolution of life is an inseparable part of the discipline of Astrobiology. The journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres places special importance on this interconnection."

"This web site explores origin of life theories starting with prebiotic evolution and the primordial soup, followed by self replicating RNA molecules and the RNA world and finally the evolution of the first genes and proteins."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's not what people say:

" However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."

But it ultimately is not part of it. The nature of the proton is of special interest in chemistry because it addresses various fundamental parts of chemistry - but it is not, itself, a chemical question. It's a more fundamental physics question that impacts the chemical story.

Evolution begins where abiogenesis ends, just as chemistry begins where nuclear physics ends. They compliment each other, and questions in one are answered by the other, but they are not the same thing.

Which is what the quote is saying: evolutionary theory implies a single universal common ancestor, so the nature of that ancestor is of special interest to evolution. Explaining its origin is not the purview of evolution (as others have pointed out, it could have formed by chemistry, God, or aliens, and evolution wouldn't change), but it does impact evolution - if we know how it formed we know a bit more about the first steps of evolution. RNA or DNA? Lipid micelles or naked proteins?

Complementary, but not equivalent, is what these quotes are saying.

"The origin and early evolution of life is an inseparable part of the discipline of Astrobiology. The journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres places special importance on this interconnection."

I don't see how this can be viewed as anything but supporting PsychoSarah: it says a) the origin of life and b) the evolution of life are both inseparable from astrobiology. It doesn't say they are inseperable from each other.

"This web site explores origin of life theories starting with prebiotic evolution and the primordial soup, followed by self replicating RNA molecules and the RNA world and finally the evolution of the first genes and proteins."

See above. Abiogenesis hands off to evolution, complementary but not the same.

 

[lesliedellow]

Foolishness. We do not know of what forces existed before this state.

We know what forces are necessary to hold the universe together, and, for that matter, to hold us together. But, don't tell me, there might have been other forces to do that. Is there no limit to the amount of nonsense you are prepared to postulate without foundation? And don't say the Bible provides you with a foundation; the Bible is not a book about fundamental physics.

 

[AV1611VET]

We know what forces are necessary to hold the universe together, and, for that matter, to hold us together.

Today ... yes.

Yesterday is another matter.

But, don't tell me, there might have been other forces to do that.

Okay ... I won't mention Shekinah energy, and you can wallow in your own misunderstanding of this universe before the Fall.

Is there no limit to the amount of nonsense you are prepared to postulate without foundation?

You mean like Jesus walking on water, for example?

And don't say the Bible provides you with a foundation; the Bible is not a book about fundamental physics.

So Jesus didn't walk on water?

 

[lesliedellow]

You mean like Jesus walking on water, for example?

Did I say anything about the possibility of the miraculous? Don't think I did.

You have at least got biblical support for that. You have got no support for the pure hokum of physical laws having been different in the past. All you have got to support that is pure fantasy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did I say anything about the possibility of the miraculous?

Yes, you did.

I believe you used the term, "nonsense."

Don't think I did.

I do think you did.

You have at least got biblical support for that.

I thought you said, "And don't say the Bible provides you with a foundation; the Bible is not a book about fundamental physics."

You have got no support for the pure hokum of physical laws having been different in the past.

Yet no one died back then.

All you have got to support that is pure fantasy.

Says you.

If Shekinah energy was discovered tomorrow, would you still call it "pure fantasy"?

 

[lesliedellow]

I believe you used the term, "nonsense."

Yes, I said inventing "facts" about physical laws having been different in the past was pure nonsense. A miracle might be defined as a temporary (and brief) suspension of the usual laws of nature.

I thought you said, "And don't say the Bible provides you with a foundation; the Bible is not a book about fundamental physics."

I did, and it isn't.

If Shekinah energy was discovered tomorrow, would you still call it "pure fantasy"?

If there was empirical support for something, it would by definition not be fantasy. But until you have evidence for it, it is some nonsense you, or somebody else, has pulled out of their head.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there was empirical support for something, it would by definition not be fantasy. But until you have evidence for it, it is some nonsense you, or somebody else, has pulled out of their head.

You're entitled to your opinion.

If that's the way science works, then I submit science provokes antagonism.

 

[GenemZ]

Gravity is more important than you give it credit, it not only keeps the earth in proper orbit, but it keeps your body from falling apart.

Are you saying that man should stop all space exploration with men in space? That their bodies will begin to fall apart if we do?

 

[GenemZ]

I don't date men.

How ever you got that? From what I said? Explains why you got nothing else I said.

And, you have missed a treasure chest the Lord just placed at your feet.


Have a nice Day! See you in heaven (without the leaven)!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[Gravity] keeps your body from falling apart.

It does?

 

[lesliedellow]

It does?

No it doesn't, but I felt ill inclined to point that out when she was arguing against Genez.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It does?

Yes, because the nucleus of atoms, which is not held together much by charge, would burst apart were it not for gravity. In macroscopic terms, it also keeps organs in proper placement to an extent, though this would not kill you, it can have adverse affects (seen in astronauts, who can develop the bone densities of 60+ year old women in their short stays in space! where gravity does still exist but not strong enough to not have health risks).

 

[GenemZ]

Yes, because the nucleus of atoms, which is not held together much by charge, would burst apart were it not for gravity. In macroscopic terms, it also keeps organs in proper placement to an extent, though this would not kill you, it can have adverse affects (seen in astronauts, who can develop the bone densities of 60+ year old women in their short stays in space! where gravity does still exist but not strong enough to not have health risks).

So, man has no place in space? Only good for weather and military satellites, and orbiting weaponry then. Some of those could make a body fall apart a lot quicker on earth.

I believe that the bone density is determined by its pressure from usage. Maybe, if men wore a half ton suites before walking around in space they would fare better. But, they better make sure to get them off before entering back into the earth's gravitational status.


Same applies to your jaw and teeth. Chewing is required for strong teeth. When you chew, the pressure and force causes electrical impulses towards its roots where nutrients are attracted by these impulses which have been generated. It makes for a strong jaw bone and teeth.

 

[dad]

Yes, because the nucleus of atoms, which is not held together much by charge, would burst apart were it not for gravity. In macroscopic terms, it also keeps organs in proper placement to an extent, though this would not kill you, it can have adverse affects (seen in astronauts, who can develop the bone densities of 60+ year old women in their short stays in space! where gravity does still exist but not strong enough to not have health risks).

Case in point how the forces in place affect humans. To live 1000 years I suspect the forces would have had to be involved.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, man has no place in space? Only good for weather and military satellites, and orbiting weaponry then. Some of those could make a body fall apart a lot quicker on earth.

I believe that the bone density is determined by its pressure from usage. Maybe, if men wore a half ton suites before walking around in space they would fare better. But, they better make sure to get them off before entering back into the earth's gravitational status.


Same applies to your jaw and teeth. Chewing is required for strong teeth. When you chew, the pressure and force causes electrical impulses towards its roots where nutrients are attracted by these impulses which have been generated. It makes for a strong jaw bone and teeth.

Gravity still applies in space, it is just very very weak in the sense that you were thinking (the atom thing is strong nuclear force, which I have always viewed as an extension of gravity) Just like you can't escape friction in space, you can't truly escape gravity there either. And half ton suits wouldn't make much of a difference, or be practice.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Case in point how the forces in place affect humans. To live 1000 years I suspect the forces would have had to be involved.

One of the big reasons why humans have a limited life span is that every time our DNA divides and replicates itself, the ends of the DNA get left out of the process (basically, DNA gets shorter). Eventually, there comes a point where too much has been cut away and the cell dies. It might not be the sole reason for aging, but it is a big one.

 

[dad]

Today ... yes.

Yesterday is another matter.

Ha. Just what I was thinking.

 

[dad]

We know what forces are necessary to hold the universe together, and, for that matter, to hold us together.

Right, and even if the forces were different we could say that.

But, don't tell me, there might have been other forces to do that.

Yes, there will be obviously, if the bible is true, and something must have held the pre flood folks together! No news there.

the Bible is not a book about fundamental physics.

It that is all it were it would grow old fast!