Does abiogenesis require a multiverse?

[PsychoSarah]

Is it?

How Brainless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence [Video] - Scientific American

Pretty sure you already posted something like that before, and intelligence is a tad subjective.

 

[Michael]

I probably posted the paramecium one then too where they always select a balanced diet?

Those seem like pretty sophisticated behaviors for an organism without a brain. The slime molds seem to 'anticipate' cold spells, and even single celled organisms will consistently seek out a balanced diet from a wide range of choices.

Pretty amazing behavior IMO. Where does that kind of 'awareness' (of environment) come form?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I probably posted the paramecium one then too where they always select a balanced diet?

Those seem like pretty sophisticated behaviors for an organism without a brain. The slime molds seem to 'anticipate' cold spells, and even single celled organisms will consistently seek out a balanced diet from a wide range of choices.

Pretty amazing behavior IMO. Where does that kind of 'awareness' (of environment) come form?

Proteins on the cells that react to specific stimuli.

 

[Michael]

Proteins on the cells that react to specific stimuli.

Hmmm. I'm not sure that explanation really/fully 'works' well for me. It sounds a little vague and a little generic considering the sophistication of the observed behaviors.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hmmm. I'm not sure that explanation really/fully 'works' well for me. It sounds a little vague and a little generic considering the sophistication of the observed behaviors.

It is what it is. The complex geography of the Grand Canyon came from the simple flow of a river over time, simple things can have more complex consequences.

 

[ChetSinger]

No.

Creationist Claim CB010: The odds of life forming are incredibly small

You should send Dr. Koonin that link. He clearly needs to get up to speed on this subject, doesn't he?

 

[Michael]

It is what it is. The complex geography of the Grand Canyon came from the simple flow of a river over time, simple things can have more complex consequences.

Are you insisting that 'brain structures' must exist for "awareness" to exist?

I'm personally open to the possibility that microscopic life forms first "evolved" trillions of years ago, and may have been evolving for trillions of years too. I lack belief in any particular age of the universe, and I'm not attached to the idea that life first formed on this particular planet. The first forms of life could have arrived here on Earth via an asteroid for all I know.

The way I see it, "awareness" is an intrinsic part of nature. It exists because the universe itself is alive and aware, and it resonates (and generates) awareness. That awareness has the ability to express itself via a myriad forms of life here on Earth, and potentially throughout the entire universe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you insisting that 'brain structures' must exist for "awareness" to exist?

I'm personally open to the possibility that microscopic life forms first "evolved" trillions of years ago, and may have been evolving for trillions of years too. I lack belief in any particular age of the universe, and I'm not attached to the idea that life first formed on this particular planet. The first forms of life could have arrived here on Earth via an asteroid for all I know.

The way I see it, "awareness" is an intrinsic part of nature. It exists because the universe itself is alive and aware, and it resonates (and generates) awareness. That awareness has the ability to express itself via a myriad forms of life here on Earth, and potentially throughout the entire universe.

Depends on how you define awareness, again, something that can be very subjective.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm afraid the prize alone doesn't dictate how nature actually operates

Unless it was won by one Hannes Alfven, for something other than cosmology/astronomy.

 

[Michael]

Unless it was won by one Hannes Alfven, for something other than cosmology/astronomy.

Nope, he's no demigod either, In fact, I personally prefer Birkeland's solar model over Alfven's model. The key empirical difference however is that Alfven used ordinary circuit theory and MHD theory and other ordinary processes in plasma to explain the world around us. He used nothing that isn't already known to exist in nature to explain the universe around him.

Compare and contrast that to Guth who simply "imagined" that his brand new force of nature was responsible for all sorts of pure nonsense. According to him, it's the ultimate free lunch, and saved us all from those dreaded (non existent) unicorns, er, "monopoles". A whopping 95 percent of Gutheology is based on *imaginary* forces of energy and matter, and none of them can even name a single source of 'dark energy', and it's *most* of their theory!

 

[morningstar2651]

You should send Dr. Koonin that link. He clearly needs to get up to speed on this subject, doesn't he?

Yes he does. String theory is bad science and totally unrelated to abiogenesis.

Would you have posted this thread if Dr. Koonin's claim provided supporting evidence for abiogenesis?

String theory - RationalWiki

 

[Michael]

Yes he does. String theory is bad science and totally unrelated to abiogenesis.

IMO the same criticism applies to string theory/inflation theory and it's relationship to polarized photons and astronomy as well.

Now biologists can finally understand my pain.

 

[PsychoSarah]

IMO the same criticism applies to string theory/inflation theory and it's relationship to polarized photons and astronomy as well.

Now biologists can finally understand my pain.

Oh no, trust me, biologists have to deal with the evolution debate, you physics people have it easy in comparison.

 

[Michael]

Oh no, trust me, biologists have to deal with the evolution debate, you physics people have it easy in comparison.

Pfft. Hardly. It's basically the same dance, different tune. In theoretical physics, it's supernatural whack-a-mole with everything from string theory to MOND theory and everything in between. God forbid any of them should embrace electricity and pure empirical physics.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Pfft. Hardly. It's basically the same dance, different tune. In theoretical physics, it's supernatural whack-a-mole with everything from string theory to MOND theory and everything in between. God forbid any of them should embrace electricity and pure empirical physics.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics misuse, micro and macro evolution imaginary divisions , lack of basic understandings of how traits are inherited or how gene mutations happen (with anything from thinking that mutations can continue and then will just stop after a point, to thinking that genetic diversity just continuously goes down no matter what, etc.), thinking that evolution is supposed to also say how the first life developed on earth, expecting theories to have to be perfect to be correct to any extent, treating changes in theories as a sign that they are complete trash ... Need I continue?

 

[Michael]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics misuse, micro and macro evolution imaginary divisions , lack of basic understandings of how traits are inherited or how gene mutations happen (with anything from thinking that mutations can continue and then will just stop after a point, to thinking that genetic diversity just continuously goes down no matter what, etc.), thinking that evolution is supposed to also say how the first life developed on earth, expecting theories to have to be perfect to be correct to any extent, treating changes in theories as a sign that they are complete trash ... Need I continue?

I'm constantly hearing nonsense on the internet like:

"There are no published papers to support EU/PC theory.
Plasmas in space are always neutral.
Magnetic reconnection is a plasma optional process.
Electrical Discharges are "impossible" in plasma
Look at my pretty new dark energy camera
I've never read a thing written by Hannes Alfven, and I don't have a clue who he is, but electric universe theory is a crackpot theory"

Need I continue?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm constantly hearing nonsense on the internet like:

"There are no published papers to support EU/PC theory.
Plasmas in space are always neutral.
Magnetic reconnection is a plasma optional process.
Electrical Discharges are "impossible" in plasma
Look at my pretty new dark energy camera
I've never read a thing written by Hannes Alfven, and I don't have a clue who he is, but electric universe theory is a crackpot theory"

Need I continue?

How about, "evolutionists unquestionably worship Darwin as their satanic master", or "if we descended from monkeys, why aren't we born monkeys and why can't we speak monkey "
Oh, and "bacteria developing the ability to eat a new food source doesn't count as a new evolutionary development, because they are still bacteria"

At least in matters of physics, the controversy of how the universe works is a bit more valid in that information is harder to gather and interpret, and overall the information base is smaller and hard to verify. Therefore, the many theories floating around are on a more equal playing field (in my opinion, anyways). When it comes to issues of biology such as evolution, I mean, the theory of evolution has more evidence and support than Newtonian gravity, there is all this knowledge that has essentially refuted most of the alternative theories, and yet people still don't even attempt to learn the basics of it before they debate .
I understand perhaps not knowing how mutations occur and the differences in how they impact the organism, but I don't understand how people can think that something like a crocoduck is even valid in the context of evolution. It would be like thinking that in order for the earth not to fly into the sun without god preventing it from happening there would have to magnetically repel each other , that is how bad some of the statements are.

If I physically did as many face palms as the comments I read deserve, I would have brain damage.

 

[Michael]

At least in matters of physics, the controversy of how the universe works is a bit more valid in that information is harder to gather and interpret, and overall the information base is smaller and hard to verify. Therefore, the many theories floating around are on a more equal playing field (in my opinion, anyways).

But the level playing field in astronomy, as in all areas of physics should be the playing field of empirical physics, not "anything I say with my make-believe invisible friend that comes with math did it".

When it comes to issues of biology such as evolution, I mean, the theory of evolution has more evidence and support than Newtonian gravity, there is all this knowledge that has essentially refuted most of the alternative theories, and yet people still don't even attempt to learn the basics of it before they debate .

Ya, but that's certainly true of PC/EU theory. I think I've met less than a handful of astronomers that have even read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven. That would be akin to the 'bible' of EU/PC theory. They almost always argue from a place of ignorance and usually they handwave at a select few "EU hater" websites that have nothing at all to do with Alfven's life's work. It's really no different in that respect.

Substitute the term "crackpot" for evil in your previous list of insults, and that's pretty much where you end up with in terms of debating EU/PC haters.

I understand perhaps not knowing how mutations occur and the differences in how they impact the organism, but I don't understand how people can think that something like a crocoduck is even valid in the context of evolution. It would be like thinking that in order for the earth not to fly into the sun without god preventing it from happening there would have to magnetically repel each other , that is how bad some of the statements are.

If I physically did as many face palms as the comments I read deserve, I would have brain damage.

The thing is that you took the time to educate yourself and you cannot now relate to the 'willful ignorance' you see and hear. I feel *exactly* the same way about the stuff I read related to EU/PC theory. None of comes from Alfven's work or Birkeland's work. It like trying to debate Darwin, when all they want to talk about is humans popping out of monkeys, and talk about the Bible and never bother reading or dealing with Darwin's work at all.

It really is the same ignorant dance, it's just a different physics tune is all.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think the big physics terms probably deters a good portion of the more ignorant crowd, while evolution terms have become common place in speech (although, pathetically misused) and don't deter ignorant people as much. I mean, you debate what, maybe 5 people on a somewhat regular basis when it comes to physics, and generally they use the terminology correctly with a few brief appearances from more ignorant people? I have more than 10 people I had to at some point have continued heated debates with who often used terms incorrectly or had less than a 5th grade understanding of evolution, with so many scattered people I can't even mentally count them. You know how sick I am of Genesis?

 

[Michael]

I think the big physics terms probably deters a good portion of the more ignorant crowd, while evolution terms have become common place in speech (although, pathetically misused) and don't deter ignorant people as much. I mean, you debate what, maybe 5 people on a somewhat regular basis when it comes to physics, and generally they use the terminology correctly with a few brief appearances from more ignorant people? I have more than 10 people I had to at some point have continued heated debates with who often used terms incorrectly or had less than a 5th grade understanding of evolution, with so many scattered people I can't even mentally count them. You know how sick I am of Genesis?

You're probably as sick of hearing people quote Genesis, as I am of hearing about the 'successful predictions' of Gutheology.

To *overcome* their ignorance, one does have to invest some time in rounding up appropriate reading material. If they won't read it or respond to that material meaningfully however, it's not really a two way conversation, and we're not communicating. In that respect, it's really not any different in my experience. Willful ignorance is just willful ignorance, no matter who does it, what the topic might be, or what the motive might be.