Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Astrid]

Except that the predominant factor with the inability to do up sums correctly is largely educational. Why is it that you have to try and make a big deal out of it and go "Actually, it's also do with evolution, because you see genetics"? It's not smart, it's not clever, it's just you trying to find ways to bash on evolution for no other reason than it clashes with your religious beliefs.

Yep

 

[Frank Robert]

If you did me the courtesy of reading I pointed that what is meant by evolution is actually a mush.

Labeling evolution "mush" sounds like something from a creationist website.

So it is neither possible to prove or disprove, nor believe or disbelieve it.
Except in the context of a definition. So you cannot say I do not believe it!

We all agree evolution can not be proven. However it can be falsified by evidence.

When you are label evolution "mush" it sounds like belief especially when you claim over and over that evolution is a belief.

I accept pieces of what is put in the general bin of evolution. On the basis of the status of evidence against definition.
So I can be neither believer nor disbeliever in “ it” because “ it” is not precise enough to say.
I believe in some of the bits.

Nice of you to recognize some evidence. So what evidence do you have to falsify what you do not recognize about evolution other than your belief.

And since it is a complete blank of evidence or even staged model from structure of first life to present minimum known cell,at a cellular level it is total overach to call evolution a unifying explanation of anything ..

Evolution begins with first life, it has nothing to do with how first life came about. The answer to first life is we don't know but we do have several feasible hypotheses, such as the RNA world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, the panspermia hypothesis. Science can not hypothesize a supper natural cause because there is no way to test for the supernatural.

You mean it is a conjecture proposed for a jigsaw which lacks many pieces , and none at all at the start Or the bottom.

Sounds like you believe that evolution is false because it lacks some of the pieces. Would you claim physics is false because Physicists do not have all the pieces?

You give me a definition of evolution that YOU think unifies explanation . I pointed out a variety of them.

Evolution is simply the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetic data is the unifying factor. The evidence from them all point to the conclusion that life on Earth has evolved over time.

PS. I don’t want the hostile Ping pong. i admire your post for civility. Bravo.
Let’s keep it that way.

I agree we should keep it civil

I would love an answer to what you think on ghosts. How much evidence do you need to go from the question of whether they are to what they are?

I, personally, haven't seen any evidence for ghosts so until I do I'll remain agnostic on ghosts.

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer to first life is we don't know ...

What is keeping you from knowing?

 

[Frank Robert]

What is keeping you from knowing?

While there are plausible hypotheses that are suggestive of how first life came about, scientists don't have evidence that demonstrates life arising from pre-biotic chemicals. I am sure that some scientists believe that it did but belief and scientific evidence are not the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

While there are plausible hypotheses that are suggestive of how first life came about, scientists don't have evidence that demonstrates life arising from pre-biotic chemicals. I am sure that some scientists believe that it did but belief and scientific evidence are not the same.

So until they do have evidence, you're going to assume that RNA world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, the panspermia hypothesis are feasible hypotheses?

 

[Mountainmike]

So Asians are genetically
superior Australians.

Or far more likely, you are beyond clurless about evolution.

Estrid.

I would love a reset on this forum to friendly informed discussion

How is it possible if you say “ beyond clueless “ which is a flame against rules ( not that I will call it ) but more important it is neither true demonstrable from my posts nor likely to help discussion

Should I answer in a reasoned way or return your ad hominem ?

 

[Astrid]

Estrid.

I would love a reset on this forum to friendly informed discussion

How is it possible if you say “ beyond clueless “ which is a flame against rules ( not that I will call it ) but more important it is neither true demonstrable from my posts nor likely to help discussion

Should I answer in a reasoned way or return your ad hominem ?

I suppose you could in a sensible way say if you were making a joke about
evolution, or explain how what you said was not clueless re evolutioof you meant it.

If it's an accurate thing I said it's hardly an ad hom.

 

[Mountainmike]

I suppose you could in a sensible way say if you were making a joke about
evolution, or explain how what you said was not clueless re evolutioof you meant it.

If it's an accurate thing I said it's hardly an ad hom.

Calling clueless is always ad hominem

There have been studies of separated twins on IQ.

The main point I made was in respect of Aussie P having bought into to Dawkins misrepresentation - whose fault is that ?

And until YOU are specific about what YOU mean and include in the phrase evolution it is hard to make progress

So what expertise do you bring ?

 

[Astrid]

Calling clueless is always ad hominem

There have been studies of separated twins on IQ.

The main point I made was in respect of Aussie P having bought into to Dawkins misrepresentation - whose fault is that ?

And until YOU are specific about what YOU mean and include in the phrase evolution it is hard to make progress

So what expertise do you bring ?

Id say you don't know what an ad hom is.

 

[Mountainmike]

Id say you don't know what an ad hom is.

Shall I report it to get the inevitable answer?

Calling some one “clueless” is an attack on the man not the argument.
I had the displeasure of learning Latin for 5 years too!

The tone of the exchanges is why this particular forum is unpleasant.

You could have said “ I disagree on the meaning “ instead of “ you don’t know… which is another ad hom“

But seriously?
The reason man is the successful species is ability to control environment because of iq and grey matter.

But what is your expertise? just out of interest?

 

[Frank Robert]

So until they do have evidence, you're going to assume that RNA world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, the panspermia hypothesis are feasible hypotheses?

I am not assuming anything. The RNA world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, the panspermia hypothesis are feasible hypotheses.

 

[Mountainmike]

So until they do have evidence, you're going to assume that RNA world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, the panspermia hypothesis are feasible hypotheses?

I am not assuming anything. The RNA world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, the panspermia hypothesis are feasible hypotheses.

Sorry to inject a bit of science in,
But these are not hypotheses. A hypothesis is something You can test.
Since you have no. proposed structure for a supposed first cell, you have nothing to test!
They remain conjecture.

 

[SelfSim]

Sorry to inject a bit of science in,
But these are not hypotheses. A hypothesis is something You can test.
Since you have no. proposed structure for a supposed first cell, you have nothing to test!..

Sorry to inject scientific disappoint upon you .. but what do you think intruments like SOLID (signs of Life Detector), the Viking Lander biological experiments and the science payload for the upcoming Europa mission are/were for .. if not to test hypotheses (bio-structures and processes) about organic chemistries in exo-environments?
Eg #1: Solid Instrument

SOLID was designed for automatic in situ detection and identification of substances from liquid and crushed samples under the conditions of outer space. The system uses hundreds of carefully selected antibodies to detect lipids, proteins, polysaccharides, and nucleic acids. These are complex biological polymers that could only be synthesized by life forms, and are therefore strong indicators —biosignatures— of past or present life.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sorry to inject scientific disappoint upon you .. but what do you think intruments like SOLID (signs of Life Detector), the Viking Lander biological experiments and the science payload for the upcoming Europa mission are/were for .. if not to test hypotheses (bio-structures and processes) about organic chemistries in exo-environments?
Eg #1: Solid Instrument

Use logic my boy, logic!

They are background research not testing any particular hypothesis , asking whats there.
Which is useful stuff of course, it’s just not a hypothesis of abiogenesis.

As I pointed to another poster , Organic chemicals refer to bonding type not life.
Others you quote test whether life evidence exists , not how it arose, which is abiogenesis

I , and science , need proper definition

I Go back to the definition of abiogenesis, non life to life.

So if franks “ RNA world “ was a hypothesis for abiogenesis, he would heed a structure including RNA genome , and a process by which it came to Form, from non living precursors to test. There is no structure or process, so no test, so no hypothesis.

( by the way he is out on a limb here, most recognise the absurdity of RNA as first genome,because of complexity and consider it at best a step on the road , not the first, and they only do that for lack of other ideas..)


Reality Iis nobody knows how first life formed or the stages of cell evolution to present complexity.
Both are a void of other than speculatiion.

Some of the “ hypotheses” are more ridiculous in using that word for them, like thermal vent.

That describes a “where” , not a what or a how.
A hypothesis for abiogenesis is a “what” and a “how” that can be tested!

This is my problem with evolution believers - actually the fault of the scientific community of believers.
They let their descriptions, of “ hypothesis” , “ theory “, and “ fact “ run way ahead of evidence or test.

 

[Frank Robert]

Sorry to inject a bit of science in,
But these are not hypotheses. A hypothesis is something You can test.
Since you have no. proposed structure for a supposed first cell, you have nothing to test!
They remain conjecture.

There are a number of ways to test predictions of feasible hypotheses I mentioned above. A simple and quick way to learn how is to start with a simple Google search. For example how can the RNA world hypothesis be tested? Repeat with searches for the metabolism-first hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis and the panspermia hypothesis.

Whether you agree or not these hypotheses are the leading explanations for the origin of life.

 

[sjastro]

Japan,

Thinking educational achievement is somehow about evos a sign of low achievemen. So is thinking it's
" garbage".

As for smartest, of course that's
not really the topic, but anyway Finland,Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore all so far outpace Oz one might suspect its
about different species.

When I worked for Toyota I was summoned to Japan to explain how a colonial outpost of Toyota, in this case Toyota Motor Corporation Australia, was able to solve field problems their elite engineers were incapable of doing.
I encountered a double whammy a Caucasian showing up their deficiencies (the racism was evident) but worse still doing it in the role as a scientist.
When It comes to education it appears the Japanese engineers couldn't understand basic science which is strange as engineering is an application of science.

 

[SelfSim]

Use logic my boy, logic!

I am not your 'boy'!
Take this as a warning.

So if franks “ RNA world “ was a hypothesis for abiogenesis, he would heed a structure including RNA genome , and a process by which it came to Form, from non living precursors to test. There is no structure or process, so no test, so no hypothesis.

So what do you think is needed to test for the presence of amino acids, ribonucleotides, proteins and RNA molecules?

A crystal ball?

 

[Mountainmike]

There are a number of ways to test predictions of feasible hypotheses I mentioned above. A simple and quick way to learn how is to start with a simple Google search. For example how can the RNA world hypothesis be tested? Repeat with searches for the metabolism-first hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis and the panspermia hypothesis.

Whether you agree or not these hypotheses are the leading explanations for the origin of life.

Frank, even I get bored of this.

Ill answer just one more and then move on.
The tests suggested are testing the viability of RNA to perform as a genome.
So that is the hypothesis tested .

It is not either directly or indirectly a test of whether non living chemicals can combine to form a complete living thing including forming RNA as tge genome , which is the hypothesus of abiogenesis, there is no structure for the living thing to test.

Indeed RNA is exceptionally difficult to synthesise, which is the reason most commenters suggest RNA world as a staging point on a journey, not the first, But there’s no evidence it happened that way or pathway to it or from it.
it is just a piece of conjecture.

As for sea floor - Take a paper by nasa which has a thoroughly dishonest title
“ nasa reproduces origin of life” on sea floor.
But if you read the detail, After lots of waffle it concludes
“COULD combine to form more complex organic molecules that COULD lead to life.”
Could. No structure. No process. No test. so No hypothesis.

Reality is they get paid lots of money to keep people believing in this speculation.
I wish I could get the research funding they do and deliver so little for it!

They think “ if we wing it for a while, the breakthrough will come”
50 years ago it was a reasonable belief. It isn’t any more.

I am sure they are all embarrassed it hasn’t,
The minimum cell is horrendously complicated and no one knows how it came to be.

Lets move on.
now answer my post on ghosts, let’s do something else.

 

[Bradskii]

Ill answer just one more and then move on.

How about you answer my question in post 1696 first? You made a claim. I'd like to see you follow it through.

'I've never come across this used in conjunction with evolutionary development. I've only seen it used with motor systems. Maybe you can expand on this? Can you link to something that connects them? I'd be interested to see it.'

 

[Mountainmike]

I've never come across this used in conjunction with evolutionary development. I've only seen it used with motor systems. Maybe you can expand on this? Can you link to something that connects them? I'd be interested to see it.

Im not going to dwell on this, here in brief,

Optimal filters are far more often used for state space modelling and observing of process. Observing is a state space theoretic word. GPS and tracking systems use them. Much of real world is nonlinear or time variant, Even magnetics show hysteresis. A nonlinear and or time variant process -or consider n type acoustic shock waves, turbulent flow generally , aircraft dynamics - nonlinear models needs mathematical hill climbing techniques , that is gradually improving a determinant of model performance by steps.

That is exactly how dawkins characterises evolutionary development in climbing mount improbable which presumes progressive small survival improvement.
But both the paradigm and method he describes are suspect, born of his misunderstanding.

he speaks of climbing the mountain by progressive gentle path round the back.

I can only point out to Dawkins that if he uses his method to climb Everest, he will get stranded on the north downs in England, if he ever makes it outside Oxford, and not even make it to france. Let alone Tibet. Because from the north downs the progress is negative. So Hill climbing optimisation , like evolution needs big change and catastrophic outcomes, and failures, to make it to higher ground.

Thats the opinion of someone who spent a lot of time optimising using hill climbing for both state space modelling , control and state space estimation. Been there, got the t shirt.

Labeling evolution "mush" sounds like something from a creationist website.

We all agree evolution can not be proven. However it can be falsified by evidence.

When you are label evolution "mush" it sounds like belief especially when you claim over and over that evolution is a belief.


Nice of you to recognize some evidence. So what evidence do you have to falsify what you do not recognize about evolution other than your belief.

Evolution begins with first life, it has nothing to do with how first life came about. The answer to first life is we don't know but we do have several feasible hypotheses, such as the RNA world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, the panspermia hypothesis. Science can not hypothesize a supper natural cause because there is no way to test for the supernatural.

Sounds like you believe that evolution is false because it lacks some of the pieces. Would you claim physics is false because Physicists do not have all the pieces?

Evolution is simply the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetic data is the unifying factor. The evidence from them all point to the conclusion that life on Earth has evolved over time.


I agree we should keep it civil

I, personally, haven't seen any evidence for ghosts so until I do I'll remain agnostic on ghosts.

By “ mush” I meant it is amorphous - nebulous. I do not read creationist sites .

There are many aspects sometimes regarded as , or contained in, the suppose theory evolution which are related but not the same.

Common descent, is not the same logical proposition as , life as a product of progressive small change ( which best describes Darwin) survival of fittest, or progressive improvement of survival implied by “ climbing mount improbable” ( Dawkins) or , the molecular biology inheritance mechanisms. Etc etc etc
There is no single theory. And most of the ideas are not testable except by extrapolation.

Much like abiogenesis , you can neither test, nor prove nor disprove , believe nor disbelieve , except in context of a definition. The definition of abiogebesis , needs a definition of living.

Just Because I buy into one part of the evolution blob of ideas, does not mean I must buy into them all.

And just because I do not agree to parts does not mean I do not believe in “evolution” .
It is not a single cohesive idea,

Stating origin of all life is a product of abiogenesus as a chemical process and unguided evolution from there is a faith statement, not a scientific one. You are welcome to believe it. But it’s neither a hypothesis nor a theory.

So moving on,

I asked on the other thread which is the proper place, what do you regard as sufficient evidence for ghosts?
Where is your threshold at which “ whether they are” changes to the question ” what they are”.
Its an Important question in the nature of evidence.