Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[1emglenn]

All of this is well documented, understood and explained if you understand the relevant fields well enough.
Burkey

Well documented, you have got to be kidding. Yes we have created life in the lab but not sustainable except through cloning. If lab-made life is left alone to itself it dies out. It just isn't viable. Nothing is until the population can reach a level where the negative mutations aren't common. Mutations happen all the time but in a small gene pool the negative ones dominate.

Sponsored

 

[CJJon]

I always thought she was kinda hot.

 

[Chef jpd]

Star wars on a religious debate, never saw that coming......

 

[CJJon]

All of this is well documented, understood and explained if you understand the relevant fields well enough.
Burkey

Well documented, you have got to be kidding. Yes we have created life in the lab but not sustainable except through cloning. If lab-made life is left alone to itself it dies out. It just isn't viable. Nothing is until the population can reach a level where the negative mutations aren't common. Mutations happen all the time but in a small gene pool the negative ones dominate.

So, if we can't replicate the conditions that happened eons ago when comets bombarded the new earth and seeded it with the raw materials for life...and then create some new life form in the process...it didn't happen and was conjured by a man in the sky? WUT?

 

[CJJon]

How's this for some cogent ideas about the origin of life. Spoiler Alert: Chemistry, physics, time and nothing else.

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life

 

[Burkey]

All of this is well documented, understood and explained if you understand the relevant fields well enough.
Burkey

Well documented, you have got to be kidding. Yes we have created life in the lab but not sustainable except through cloning. If lab-made life is left alone to itself it dies out. It just isn't viable. Nothing is until the population can reach a level where the negative mutations aren't common. Mutations happen all the time but in a small gene pool the negative ones dominate.

With all due respect, your basic understanding is clearly flawed. If you understood it, you wouldn’t have the objections you do (which is not to say that you wouldn’t have OTHER objections, but I can’t speak to them until you assert them)
To make it worse, you started by attacking the theory of evolution and then moved to abiogenesis.

Can we stick to one point at a time for some clarity?

Instead of declaring that something isn’t possible because you don’t understand it, you could ask a biologist for an explanation.

Again I point you to “argument from ignorance”.

 

[Burkey]

The honest answer is....I don’t know. Nobody does.
But I’m not making the claim that I do, unlike the religious.
One of these positions is honest, one is not.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

You keep coming up with logical fallacies and/or a demonstrable misunderstanding of concepts my man.
I just show you where your mistakes lie.

Now prove that I’m wrong when I say “I don’t know”.

Prove that atheism is a religion.
I don’t think you can without twisting words and meanings.
Is not believing in unicorns a religion?
if you can make the case for that, I’ll accept that not believing in a god is a religion.

 

[1emglenn]

With all due respect, your basic understanding is clearly flawed. If you understood it, you wouldn’t have the objections you do (which is not to say that you wouldn’t have OTHER objections, but I can’t speak to them until you assert them)
To make it worse, you started by attacking the theory of evolution and then moved to abiogenesis.

Can we stick to one point at a time for some clarity?

Instead of declaring that something isn’t possible because you don’t understand it, you could ask a biologist for an explanation.

Again I point you to “argument from ignorance”.

I am not attacking either the emergence of life nor the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is based upon the premise that positive mutations will be adopted and negative will peter-out. What I am talking about is what we know about the process of extinction. Plain and simple. The extinction vortex happens when environment is unsupportive, population depletion, or some kind of decimation by outside influence. But once that threshold for the health of the species is crossed the species that exists today is doomed. My only question is that knowing what we know about the extinction threshold how was it ever reached?
Emergence of life is simple, whether it comes from a meteor from outer space or is just from the primordial soup. But the sustainability of that life is very fragile and the environment must be tipped in its favor for that life to flourish.
As far as "argument from ignorance," I truly suspect that you have not made much of a study about the subject of extinction and the process that leads to it.

 

[Burkey]

Adams‘ brilliance in turning complex ideas into simple analogies was quite amazing.

 

[Burkey]

I am not attacking either the emergence of life nor the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is based upon the premise that positive mutations will be adopted and negative will peter-out.

Erm...no. You‘ve already made a mistake. At no point does the theory suggest that mutations are positive or negative. A mutation will either survive or it won’t, depending on the selective pressure of the environment of the time. In some cases the mutation simply becomes dormant, but this is semantics really.
A mutation that might be beneficial in one population will sometimes be detrimental in another. Hence, speciation.

I don’t take much (if any) exception to the rest of your reply.

I would agree that I’ve spent ZERO time looking at the extinction vortex.

My only question is that knowing what we know about the extinction threshold how was it ever reached?

I don’t think I understand the question properly. Can you clarify it? How was WHAT reached?

 

[RPDBlueMoon]

Okay, throwing my hat into the ring again. This has degenerated into how are we here, where is here, ad nauseam. I, myself have a problem with why we are here. Both religion and science try to answer the question but neither succeed. You see, I've got a problem with the chicken and the egg.
Ever hear of extinction vortex or threshold viable population? Both have to do with how a species stays viable and avoids extinction. And since the world has been around 99% of all known species have become extinct.
Now according to religion (at least Muslim, Jewish and Christian) there were just two people in the garden of Eden. Which leads us the thought where did Cain's and Abel's children come from (don't even want to go there). Then we have the great flood and Noah only takes two of every animal except for the humans and that was supposed to regenerate life on earth. Sorry, two of anything is not a viable gene pool. We're talking extinction.
Now science has the same problem (chicken and the egg). How does life multiply and grow to the point that the gene pool is viable without the genetic inbreeding killing it off before they get there? There is no answer. Sorry Burkey, but somehow it happened and it is impossible. Miracle?

To be fair there actually was three people in the Garden, before Eve, there was Lilith, she was actually the first wife of Adam. She is mentioned in the Hebrew bible but largely demonized in Christianity (not a surprise lol).

Also, genetic inbreeding isn't a problem for some less complex organisms like bacteria (asexual reproduction), obviously for more complex ones like mammals or fish its a huge problem (one of the reasons why the outlook for Cheetahs aren't good even with conservation efforts). Theoretically the chicken would come first since the egg is how it reproduces, but yeah there are still unexplained things. Cyanobacteria is responsible for oxygen due to being the first organism to perform photosynthesis, which gave rise to more complex organisms. But Humans are a complete anomaly, there are some stuff this isn't fully known like how chloroplast made its way into a bacteria. There are some explanations but there is debate, just like the creation of the universe. Stuff is interesting. The new black hole discovery is actually very interesting

 

[1emglenn]

To be fair there actually was three people in the Garden, before Eve, there was Lilith, she was actually the first wife of Adam. She is mentioned in the Hebrew bible but largely demonized in Christianity (not a surprise lol).

Also, genetic inbreeding isn't a problem for some less complex organisms like bacteria (asexual reproduction), obviously for more complex ones like mammals or fish its a huge problem (one of the reasons why the outlook for Cheetahs aren't good even with conservation efforts). Theoretically the chicken would come first since the egg is how it reproduces, but yeah there are still unexplained things. Cyanobacteria is responsible for oxygen due to being the first organism to perform photosynthesis, which gave rise to more complex organisms. But Humans are a complete anomaly, there are some stuff this isn't fully known like how chloroplast made its way into a bacteria. There are some explanations but there is debate, just like the creation of the universe. Stuff is interesting. The new black hole discovery is actually very interesting

Just wanted to say that I knew about Lilith. But my understanding was that she was banished from the garden when god made Eve from Adam's rib.

 

[Burkey]

But Humans are a complete anomaly,

Can you expand on the anomalies? (For science).

 

[CJJon]

“death nail’? Snort! What’s that? LOL!

High school must have been tough.

 

[CJJon]

Lilith was a hottie! Eve was a dingbat.

Sponsored