True, but some of us just like to use extended vocabularies - and they can be more precise and more concise - if the reader knows the words.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
True, but some of us just like to use extended vocabularies - and they can be more precise and more concise - if the reader knows the words.Feynman commented on a tangled web of tech jarg constituting
a paragraph randomly chosen in a psychology text book.
After puzzling it out he determined that it meant "people like to read".
The paragraph that includes such impenetrable obfuscs as
."...edge of criticality in its complexity modelled conception...
stacked contingent influences..." appears to just mean
"Organisms respond to their environment"
We know people like to read and that organisms respond.
Likewise we know when someone is trying to bedazzle
with faux erudition.
True, but some of us just like to use extended vocabularies - and they can be more precise and more concise - if the reader knows the words.
Apparently asleep alligators await approaching animals. An alligator anticipates an antelope's avoidance antics and attacks anyway.
Stay tuned for Bewildered Badgers.
Off-topic, but maybe something more interesting - the thoughts of a teacher pondering on the past possessive word use of two Arab pupils, Ali Had-had, and Mustapha Had (names italicised for clarity) writing about each other's work:Maybe just some alliteration?
Off-topic, but maybe something more interesting - the thoughts of a teacher pondering on the past possessive word use of two Arab pupils, Ali Had-had, and Mustapha Had (names italicised for clarity) writing about each other's work:
"Whereas Had had had "Had-Had had had 'had'", Had-had had had "Had had had 'had had'"; had Had-Had had "Had had had 'had'", would Had have had "Had-Had had had 'had had'"?
Can anyone make a grammatical sentence with more than 25 consecutive repeated words (other than 'had')? I say other than 'had' because it is possible to extend the one above with more levels of nested reference, but it starts to become unreadable
What is all that (!) saying?I will write that that that that that that that that that that that that
that that that that that that that that that that that that that that.
What is all that (!) saying?
Anything on Mustachioed Mountain Marmots? I was sitting on the side of a mountain in Colorado during our filed geology course. Discussing something with a TA. All of a sudden a.marmot appears. It goes underneath the TA's legs and between the two of us and was gone. The marmot probably did not have a mustache.Apparently asleep alligators await approaching animals. An alligator anticipates an antelope's avoidance antics and attacks anyway.
Stay tuned for Bewildered Badgers.
One relevant aspect of chemistry along the lines of @Occams Barber's OP point of 'inanimate matter' being crucial in 'animating matter', (or organisms), materialises when one recognises that enzymes act as catalysts in animating biology.Occams Barber said:You seem to have missed the whole point of the OP which is to demonstrate the concept of animate matter arising from inanimate matter. To use your words, the seed 'produces life'.DamianWarS[/quote said:isn't this just another way to phrase the chicken and egg problem? the seed comes from the tree, which makes the seed, which makes the tree, etc... it's an established cycle and the seed is a product of existing life that in turn produces life. the mystery is not where the seed came from (we know it comes from the tree) or where the tree comes from (we know it comes from the seed) the mystery is how the cycle got started which your seed analogy seems to not address.
The tree employs a different process to abiogenesis but it demonstrates that inanimate matter can be converted into the stuff of a living tree using a complex chemical process.
If you go back through the post you'll see some discussion which touches on your chicken/egg problem. You might also like to consider the absence of a clear definition of life.
Where did the seed come from? It came from a living tree. There's the flaw in the argument as the seed itself doesn't just all of a sudden pop into existence as it is a product of life itself. Without the tree there is no seed. The seed requires life to pre-exist for it to be able to produce life itself. The seed may be inanimate but it is an inanimate dependant upon life to exist.You seem to have missed the whole point of the OP which is to demonstrate the concept of animate matter arising from inanimate matter. To use your words, the seed 'produces life'.
The tree employs a different process to abiogenesis but it demonstrates that inanimate matter can be converted into the stuff of a living tree using a complex chemical process.
If you go back through the post you'll see some discussion which touches on your chicken/egg problem. You might also like to consider the absence of a clear definition of life.
OB
The only flaw is in your understanding. Even today the line between "alive" and "not alive" is very fuzzy. Are viruses alive? How about prions? When life first began there would have been no point where all scientists would say "this is the line" Different scientists will have different qualifications of what is and what is not life.Where did the seed come from? It came from a living tree. There's the flaw in the argument as the seed itself doesn't just all of a sudden pop into existence as it is a product of life itself. Without the tree there is no seed. The seed requires life to pre-exist for it to be able to produce life itself. The seed may be inanimate but it is an inanimate dependant upon life to exist.
Where did the seed come from? It came from a living tree. There's the flaw in the argument as the seed itself doesn't just all of a sudden pop into existence as it is a product of life itself. Without the tree there is no seed. The seed requires life to pre-exist for it to be able to produce life itself. The seed may be inanimate but it is an inanimate dependant upon life to exist.
I’m gonna follow you because when I read your stuff I get the same feel good sensations that I get when I read Bruce Lee quotes hahaisn't this just another way to phrase the chicken and egg problem? the seed comes from the tree, which makes the seed, which makes the tree, etc... it's an established cycle and the seed is a product of existing life that in turn produces life. the mystery is not where the seed came from (we know it comes from the tree) or where the tree comes from (we know it comes from the seed) the mystery is how the cycle got started which your seed analogy seems to not address.
if I leave a piece of meat out and let it rot to discover it's then covered in maggots where did the maggots come from? did the inanimate meat spontaneously generate the maggots? that's what this argument amounts to. every inanimate to animate conversion is explained through a self-contained process that is dependant upon the animate. your argument demonstrates the conversion in a vacuum where life pre-exists but does not address outside the vacuum. the same logic could be used to point to an outside influence.By the way - this argument is not 'proof' for abiogenesis. It does however demonstrate that inanimate to animate conversion is possible without non-natural intervention.
Check this out .. no animate chemicals are required as reactants .. yet the reaction product is visibly animate!.. every inanimate to animate conversion is explained through a self-contained process that is dependant upon the animate. ..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?