It's very interesting that life evolved from 3 things that could harm, if not kill us. So, just how alien are we?
Water is made up of Hydrogen & Oxygen.Water is made of things that can kill us. Cars too. What's yer point?Oh yeah, prove it to me
Water is made of things that can kill us. Cars too. What's yer point?
Oh yeah, prove it to me.
You can give a 3-year-old paint, a brush and canvas, but the 3-year-old will not produce a Picasso.
You can give a 3-year-old paint, a brush and canvas, but the 3-year-old will not produce a Picasso.
How did the "three basic ingredients" to life become life?
Extraordinary claims....
If they know how to create life, show us.
So if you add the magic ingredients to make life in the ocean, add "millions" of years, bingo life just comes together by itself and then starts to duplicate itself again magically. Then over time, it fixes itself, all using random mutations, and grows the DNA more and more complex, even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all things break down? WOW, is this what science teaches these days. What ever happened to observable, repeatable science were we must see and be able to repeat in a lab,. not just taking a leap of faith and believing what they say. Could these guys be just trying to make a name and get more funding? Life from non-life, and why cant they get this to work in a laboratory? Oh ya, add the magic "millions of years" and BINGO BANGO, life from non-life. And believing that God designed all life and set it, and the universe, in motion is hard to believe? John 3:16, look it up!Ummm ... are you sure you have the right chapter & verse there?
"duh" was the word??
Ever heard of self-organizing systems? No god required.
Even if the chemistry is correct, the authors should show why life only began ONCE at 4B years ago and never again since then, with the many unique properties that earth life has now.
What were the unique conditions 4,000,000 years ago that provided a special environment for their postulated process, and their process never happened again. For just one reference, see Neil de Grass Tyson's excellent presentation on this subject in the video Cosmos.
What can't be replicated in the lab is BUNK. With all our intelligence and science we can NOT do what supposedly happenned by total accident with no intelligence whatsoever. Scientists who believe in accidental life have more FAITH than the pope...and when they have no answers or proof they just resort to supercilious name calling...pathetic.
You are confused as to what the second law of thermodynamics implies because you are confused about entropy.
. . . believing God designed all life.
Well, DNA is the largest "data" storage that we know exists, and "data" can only come from "intelligence."
Well, DNA is the largest "data" storage that we know exists, and "data" can only come from "intelligence."
How do you know it's not still happening now? The environment changed, so the 1st
self-assembling, self-regulating life became more complex (re - adapting) to deal with it...
OK, following up on my earlier comment.
Well, mathematically, anything less probable than one in 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) is IMPOSSIBLE. The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than one in 10^4,478,146, mind you even that statistic starts with an "assumption" that it is probable!
Extraordinary claims....
If they know how to create life, show us.
All they are doing and reporting on is the figuring out of a little part of the process. THAT is what they are showing.
Nobody claimed to be able to create life..
Then the 'riddle' has not been solved and the entire story is specious.They solved a SMALL PART of the riddle. They're just trying to show a little enthusiasm.
Um, DNA is the genetic "code" and "code" is "DATA."
Um, DNA is the genetic "code" and "code" is "DATA."
Yah, and data builds (and you'll notice - so does code). You don't think DNA chain was always the same size as it is today, do ya?
How can someone NOT see that this just HAS to happen in a Universe with all these basic chemicals in it?
OK, following up on my earlier comment.
Well, mathematically, anything less probable than one in 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) is IMPOSSIBLE. The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than one in 10^4,478,146, mind you even that statistic starts with an "assumption" that it is probable!
@gkam
Before we can get to that, keep in mind that from the very beginning of the feat of science, starting with philosophy, and going through Natural Philosophy—Laws of Physics, leading philosophers and scientists believed in the LOGICAL MUST of the "First Cause."
[Ribosomes] "...started out in a non-chiral world, because they evolved and froze in a two-tier chiral selection of amino acids."
Interpretation: Torbjorn_Larsson_OM is a biologically uninformed science idiot representing others of "like kind" who automagically evolved (in theory).
The fine tuning argument is also flawed. If the physical constants were such that life couldn't exist, then we wouldn't be here.
To question TL is paramount to questioning the most reasonable and thoughtful...
You can give a 3-year-old paint, a brush and canvas, but the 3-year-old will not produce a Picasso.Your notion is flawed because it is in no way foundational, ie Does not allow building blocks or process of natural selection ie of structures which form further foundational building blocks etc.
How did the "three basic ingredients" to life become life?
And yes, the "Anthropic Principle" reveals "creation," hence God, the "First Cause."Really then why can this NOT be proven ?
This Universe is intricately designed and fine-tuned (Anthropic Constants are accurately measured) to enable "life" here on Earth.Well, not very well is it
You can give a 3-year-old paint, a brush and canvas, but the 3-year-old will not produce a Picasso.
Give paint, brush and canvas to enough of them and 1 will.
Only improbable, not impossible..
On the abstract of evolution, it's already been shown with computer programs that if a means of self-reproduction exists, self-reproducing entities will automatically arise out of randomness. There are computer programs which simulate the effect. They typically model a grid array of some sort, where each cell contains a string of data which is interpreted as a program and executed by a virtual machine.
I'm not a chemist, but it is a very interesting theory. Light is what makes these gasses, amino acids and proteins meld into a "living organism" no matter how simple it is. Without light, we have no simple forms.
vic1248 claimedAnd yes, the "Anthropic Principle" reveals "creation," hence God, the "First Cause."Really then why can this NOT be proven ?
vic1248 claimedThis Universe is intricately designed and fine-tuned (Anthropic Constants are accurately measured) to enable "life" here on Earth.Well, not very well is it
That's because this universe is here and expanding because there is a force outside of it and not subject to its realm, time and Laws of Nature/Physics acting upon it. That force is the "Origin" of life and matter, the "First Cause." That "Origin, First Cause," cannot be empirically examinedThis makes no sense whatsoever.
Now, that "Origin, First Cause," and all the adverse mechanisms you mentioned are consistent with what (I am Christian) is written about God and the curse and mortality He inflicted upon His creation for man to endure and pass the test of "Faith/Belief" in this lifetime, since the "fall."This makes NO sense at all, your god as claimed by Moses is a Devil because it punishes the Innocent because a young woman (Eve) was put in touch with a serpent, was manipulated, lied to and because of that your god punished not only all her children but everything else for ever !
Now, that "Origin, First Cause," and all the adverse mechanisms you mentioned are consistent with what (I am Christian) is written about God and the curse and mortality He inflicted upon His creation for man to endure and pass the test of "Faith/Belief" in this lifetime, since the "fall."Note about all religions:-
Or hadn't you noticed, so many diseases, so many pathogens (~10,000,000 species of bacteria in all), so many parasites, so many worms eg 500 or so species of intestinal worms. Sea water has ~25billion phage virus per Liter etc Pretty violent !vic1248, u claim all of the above is because of the setup to force a girl to make a bad decision from a serpent which the claimed god of Moses KNEW would lie.
All life appears as a chemical chaotic soup absolutely guaranteeing at all levels the observable proposition of "Eat & be eaten".
How does your god vic1248, unequivocally communicate, is he/she/it treating everyone equally, or is it from the claims of Moses that your god is the worst punish-er of all time ?
@Mike_MassenYou did NOT !
Well, I respectfully addressed your questions, and I have no intention of discussing religious matters here, except for the very pressing issue of the "Origin" of life and matter.
I believe in the nexus of physics and metaphysics.Believe all you like, where is the Evidence ?
There is no way mutations over millions of years could yield all the plants, animals and humans except by divine intelligence, God! Someday you will learn we are not that smart at all.In your narrow experience of maths, physics & chemistry that is true as for one reason you cannot appreciate there are virtually infinite environments & immense time scales.
Most cells don't contain any meaningful programs - E
Now, if your point is that there had to be a star *somewhere* in order for the planetary oceans to evolve to the point where thermal vents could exist, then fine, but it's pretty clear those living systems emerged and evolved in the absence of light.
You have just proved my earlier statement "...So what do they do, try to ridicule them, basically call them ignorant, and writing in great lengths to nullify and embarrass them.."Unfortunately its just too damn obvious but it seems only to those who actually follow through the logic, claimed gods are very bad communicators & NASTY !
.. We get it, you dislike, maybe even hate God, that's your problemNope, never said that. I made it clear there is NO evidence of the existence of any personal god as claimed by ALL religions, their 'stories' are immensely irrational !
We have a right to our own opinion, right or as I'm sure you'll point out, wrong. I just happen to think life happened another wayAh ! if not from bad gods then how ?
Oh well, there's at least two 'f**king drunk idiots' in this conversation. One of them is an drunk artist that's said too much. The other bores me.
As for the topic .. Mix me up a chemical stew that grows a new species, then I'll be impressed.
Oh, a computer model. Let me know when you make the real deal. A computer model is no better than a painting as far as being representative of life.
Let me know when that fruit fly experiment ongoing creates anything other than a fruitfly.
It takes a larger collection of chemicals coming together at each stage
I don't see any claim made by these chemists regarding the formation of life...
I have read many researches by qualified scientists who challenge "evolution," ... Creation Research (ICR)@vic1248
In layman's terms, "evolution" is so improbable that it is impossible!@vic
there is NO science in the creationist movement
hence God, the "First Cause."@vic
This Universe is intricately designed and fine-tunedthere is NO EVIDENCE supporting this conjecture either
Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short@little jimmie k
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures... However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes workAND THAT is just in the abstract, you idiot
You have just proved my earlier statement "...So what do they do, try to ridicule them, ...@oldwiseguy
We could go back and forth trying to outdo each other and convince other we are right
You just described my model. Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353@jimmiek
I hate ignorance. That fact infuriates science idiots!@little jimmie
I've published two award-winning reviewsand you have also said here on PO that you have had decades of experience in diagnostic medicine, a lie that can get you JAIL time
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1371.abstractand you think this study supports your creationist dogma crap? lets see
RNA kinetics may define regulatory hierarchy
The double-helical structure of DNA suggests immediately how nucleic acid polymers can recognize and bind to homologous sequences. Target recognition by RNA is vital in many biological processes. Fei et al. used super-resolution microscopy of tagged RNAs and computer modeling to understand how RNA-RNA base-pairing reactions occur in vivo. They studied a small RNA (sRNA) that targets a messenger RNA (mRNA) for degradation in bacteria. They observed a slow rate of association as the sRNA searched for its mRNA target, but thereafter a fast rate of dissociation. This explains the need for high concentrations of sRNA to cause mRNA degradation. The sRNA found different target mRNAs at different rates, allowing the generation of a regulatory hierarchy.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1371.abstract@little jimmie k
Personal negatives are a bad way to start a comment ...
Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" lists 200 observed speciations in modern time.
I have references for all my claims...
A good review on the topic is "The Drive to Life on Wet and Icy Worlds", Russell et al, Astrobiology, 2014.
That is an open question.
...optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency, and between information density and error resistance.
Mg2+ is essential for RNA folding and catalysis. However, for the first 1.5 billion years of life on Earth RNA inhabited an anoxic Earth with abundant and benign Fe2+.-- cited by Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
Due to various competing constraints, four appears to be the optimal number of nucleotides.-- cited by Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
... a two nucleotide alphabet would require a much longer codon to encode an equal number of amino acids. But hold on a minute, if this is the only force at work then why stop at four nucleotides?
We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms.
Corrigendum; http://www.nature...656.html
Presumably the universal common ancestry lineage adapted or evolved DNA to separate replication from transcription. It is easier to defend against parasites in general and genetic parasites especially.-- Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
"duh" was the word??
Ever heard of self-organizing systems? No god required.
If god is just an acronym for "Globally Organized Data", then yes, you do need one... It's how a closed system self-organizes...:-)
So if you add the magic ingredients to make life in the ocean, add "millions" of years, bingo life just comes together by itself and then starts to duplicate itself again magically.
"duh" was the word??
Ever heard of self-organizing systems? No god required.
If god is just an acronym for "Globally Organized Data", then yes, you do need one... It's how a closed system self-organizes...:-)
I prefer the acronym; Galactic Ordering Directorate, as told unto me by the primordial wisdom teacher of humanity, Mr Iboga, at the flabby gates to the castle of Bwiti.
science does not prove or disprove the existence of first cause/God@Melchizedek0001
March to Library or you will end up..in Hellthe rest of your post is stupidity and gibberish (and makes NO sense) so i didn't understand you
i do NOT fear hell. i've been there.
caused your brain damage. It explains virtually all your commentsROTFLMFAO
All in the (bigger) family http://www.scienc....summarywhat's the matter? don't want to address my points? don't want to actually explain how your link to SciMag relates to your model and stupidity because you fear being outed by ANOTHER author?
Please provide one that supports the claimwhy are YOU not providing evidence that supports your claims against mutations? remember when you used Dr. Extavour as proof of that claim... except that she stated that YOU WERE WRONG!
For contrast, see:AND for a DEBUNKING of your model, see: http://www.socioa...ew/24367
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
Scientists aren't making the leap from chemistry to biology in the same few simple steps that those who cannot stretch their own imagination enough to comprehend (creationists) are.
How much for your stuff and where can we get it?
brain damage. It explains virtually all your comments@little jimmie k
What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot asks a question like that in a discussion like this?no, it isn't
That was a rhetorical question.
why are YOU not providing evidence that supports your claims against mutations?
so W Gyre has a point: WHAT ARE YOU SELLING?
you don't know where the head and feet are on humans!
They cause loss of function via perturbed protein folding, which leads to the losswell, there goes YOUR model then, because YOUR OWN MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
This is a yes or no answer
YES!so by definition, and in your own words, your OWN MODEL is CRAP
--Thanks for asking
information dissemination is freeexcept you are pushing KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE
I know about damage caused by explosionsyou mean from your decades of experience in diagnostic medicine which you LIED ABOUT?
it is likely that you never were intelligent enough to understand biologically-based cause and effect -- even before thatexcept that i went on to get TWO college degree's AFTER that... and i am working on a third now...
Minimally, other 7th Day Adventists understand what is currently known about nutritional epigeneticsno, they do NOT, they are making ASSumptions based upon a religious belief and trying to fit the science to it, JUST LIKE YOU DO
medical practitioners of that faith are among the most informed about pharmacogenomicsCitations/references for proof of that? other than your HUNCH?
When you rejected that faith, I think you rejected more than what you thought you were rejectingi was NEVER that faith
it is likely that you never were intelligent enough to understand biologically-based cause and effectwhat i love best about your post is that it actually explains WHY you hate people like Torbjorn_Larsson_OM, ANON, Real, WGyre, Myers and myself: it points out that you are incapable of learning the basics and the only way you could proceed in life is to adapt a known pseudoscience and fallacious lie and then work with it until you could CON someone into believing you
WHY you hate people like Torbjorn_Larsson_OM, ANON, Real, WGyre, Myers and myself:
I do not hate people. I hate ignorancethis is your biggest LIE TO DATE
I disseminate accurate information about biologically-based cause and effectto date you have PROMOTED PSEUDOSCIENCE
if you hated ignorance, you would have chosen to educate yourself and learn WHY you are wrong,
It's very interesting that life evolved from 3 things that could harm, if not kill us. So, just how alien are we?
I wonder what ...but I do not care why@jk
In the Bible there is an expression that accurately describes the situation in today's scientific circles@renTROLL the idiot
The truth is that God created the Еarth and the man, and it is available since the Creator gave us the Bible@renTARDED
The main reason for not wanting to know God is God's lawand now you are saying that your own sky faerie is a bald faced liar, as this is technically (per your book and the whole xtian movement) the second covenant and thus you are not needed to spread the news, you idiot
In the Bible.... "While thinking that they getting smarter they became fools." While they thought that they understand the world in which they are increasingly moving away from the truthRen82, u have fallen into a psychological trap.
The truth is that God created the Еarth and the man, and it is available since the Creator gave us the BibleOnly a book & very badly distributed !
Bible Evidence re Moses' claimed god:-
1 Untestable claims
2 Allows satan to lie to innocent Eve
3 Kills millions Eg Noah/Flood
4 Kills thousands Eg Samuel
5 Kills soldiers only following orders
6 Vengeful re Pharaoh
7 Punishes everyone for ever & ever (fall)
8 etc
But, doesn't ever build.
Fully consistent with a lying destroying DEVIL
I think when people come on here quoting scripture all I see is Catholic pollution. They don't know either the Bible or the source of the myths they claim. All that must be said for the scientific hope is Heat Death. No point in going on. All for naught.
Theory of evolution is pure religion, because it does not rely on scientific facts but on wishful thinking and deception from the beginning of its promotion in societyNO. Get off your bum & speak to biologists, foods scientists, etc You have your head in the sand, you poor dogmatic emotional fool !
The faith in God is faith in the truth that is life giving force in this universeYour god as claimed by Moses is a DEVIL & obviously should NEVER be trusted !
If you want answers read the Bible where is recorded human history and God's wisdomALl u have is an old book from a man who made a claim, clearly your god is pretty selective so ONE man gets Authority, Status & Power !
Who do not have heart for God's wisdom will nоt understand it, although is written in accessible language. it is not accidental that rebels against God are constantly trying to change itAll u have done is read much into an old book from one person, when your god is feeble & impotent & could not broadcast it until humans could travel better.
It is not accidental that medieval church in Europe and all dictators and tyrants in human history have tried to take away the Bible from people.WRONG. Constantine adopted it & used it to control people, he followed a new religion & exploited it !
Book from a man? Can you clear what you mean with this claim?From Moses & his cohorts, its a book with claims, nothing more.
I have two simple questionsOK but, U haven't yet answered mine, Y ?
1) Do you like ten God's commandments?Irrelevant but, telling that some are for the ego of Moses/god as he not only claims god said he is the only one but, implies he knows the future, so therefore what insanity could there be to be jealous of something that cannot exist - ie. Prospect god of Moses is jealous of another - sheer idiocy !
2) Can you demonstrate how random events creates order and increase information in any system?Easy, shown it to you before re genetic algorithms, do you not read my posts and research them, are u so narrow minded.
God created us...The door of God's grace was closed@RENTROLLING RETARD
Everyone without exception will receive fair court at the end of the time for his faith and deeds and honest, good and righteous are happy for thisthen you should be terrified of going to hell for your failure to abide by the religious rules of your bible and the lies you've intentionally spread proving you are intentionally trying to cause failure in those who seek knowledge
Theory of evolution is pure religion, because it does not rely on scientific facts@TROLL ren
I am not a professional psychologistyou are ALSO NOT WELL VERSED IN YOUR OWN BIBLE
Book from a man? Can you clear what you mean with this claim?@ren
I have two simple questions.
1) Do you like ten God's commandments?
2) Can you demonstrate how random events creates order and increase information in any system?
As they always do, the biologically uninformed science idiots have destroyed this discussion. ....@the idiot jk
http://news.scien...-insects
Lying is counterproductive and leads up to self destruction of society@ren
why not give us a complete run down of what YOU think the following study says:
"It might therefore be concluded that all theoretical investigations point in the same direction: a certain alphabet size (probably four) seems to be optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency, and between information density and error resistance."
...a certain alphabet size (probably four) seems to be optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency...
@TL_OM"It might therefore be concluded that all theoretical investigations point in the same direction: a certain alphabet size (probably four) seems to be optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency, and between information density and error resistance."
Damage is inevitable. Or at least all life appears to possess repair ( Is there a form of life without repair?). Of course no repair is perfect. So the changes there contributed to evolution much less half haphazardly, less detrimental, and more often than mutation.
(You only have mutation where repair fails. A metaphysical question: Does evolution stop from repair that can repair all damage? Place me in the "no" camp where researchers consider damage normal to at least brain activity).
http://medicalxpr...ain.html
...a certain alphabet size (probably four) seems to be optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency...
???Catalytic efficiency??? What happened to the automagical autocatalytic efficiency that led to the evolution of the alphabet from nothing, and the anti-entropic catalytic events that control DNA damage or repair it?
Didyou just try to remove the magic from stability and evolvability by placing a ridiculous theory into the context of nutrient-dependent fidelity and catalytic efficiency controlled by the physiology of reproduction and fixation of amino acids substitutions in the organized genomes of all genera?
Why not simply admit to your ignorance instead of continuing to display it?
"The supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity He exists always and everywhere."
Stumpy, it seems that you become my second shadow. There is rarely a case to not comment me. The truth does not give you peace. What are your sins which make you so resistant to the truth? You know well that participants in this forum rarely read yоurs comments but despite this your persistence is impressive.
The truth does not give you peace. What are your sins which make you so resistant to the truth?
You know well that participants in this forum rarely read yоur comments but despite this your persistence is impressive.
"Phys.org. Cum dumpster for trolls with delusions of grandeur."
Calling paid spam for outright scams "Popular Articles and Offers" isn't a bit of a give-away that it's a bait and switch site???
"From Moses & his cohorts, its a book with claims, nothing more?"Beg Pardon ?
You constantly demonstrate shocking ignorance for the God's Scriptures.
I am Curious Ren82 You said God gave us free will and Eve and Adam eating the Fruit of the tree of Knowledge caused Original Sin. So if I have free will WHY am I Punished for a Choice I never Made? That isn't Free Will nor is it the work of a All Knowing/All Powerful LOVING God. You can't claim it was a test... because he KNEW they would fail thus making everyone else who followed somehow Guilty by Nothing they did. Thus Requiring him to split himself into 3 Gods to save the World HE Damned. It makes ZERO Sense if the Universe and Life required a Creator who created your Living God? He has to have a Creator as well, so there goes his having no gods before him....I've been saying roughly same things in variously for ~30yrs nice concise variations you offered :-)
"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.."Indeed the bible has elements of 'sublime philosophy' and is an authentic attempt to explain human's lot, especially as to why all beings suffer equally !
OK, following up on my earlier comment.
Well, mathematically, anything less probable than one in 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) is IMPOSSIBLE. The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than one in 10^4,478,146, mind you even that statistic starts with an "assumption" that it is probable!
My apologies for my knee jerk reaction. More respectful in the future as you as one of the smarter and more interesting contributors.
Now ... where's my Crown Royal?
What make the Earth open system? The sun energy? This is the reason for increasing the order on our planet?It is not the reason for it, but it is the source of energy that enables certain processes that locally decrease entropy, yes. The *reason* those processes are able to cause entropy of the local system to decrease is that they release sufficient "waste heat" that the overall change in entropy of the universe is still positive. That is the proper interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics in this context.
Order can increase only when submitting precisely controlled by intelligence energy and matter in the systemWhat about iron oxidation by O2 to produce rust? That process causes a local increase of order that is quite analogous to photosynthesis, for example.
This is how people create things.And the "waste heat" entropy increase from "creation" is always greater than any local decrease in entropy that you are calling "increased order".
Planet Earth is in precise energy balance that provides a suitable environment for life support. Would you explain how radiation or absorption of certain amount of energy will increase the order and the information in the system, if is not not under the control of intelligence?
Do you struggle with understanding the fact that random events do not create order in a system and do not increase information in it.
The truth does not give you peace@renTROLL
You know well that participants in this forum rarely read yоurs commentsyou do!
Stumpy, it seems that you become my second shadowactually, it is reverse
That is the proper interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics in this context.
It is highly plausible that the entire meteoritic N-isotope range can be accommodated simply by the photochemical effect (including self-shielding and mutual shielding and perturbations) during photodissociation of N2. The bulk nebular N-isotopic ratio is represented by the Sun and Jupiter, while the terrestrial ratio and the ratios from the meteoritic materials represent considerable processing from the original starting values, and the bulk of the processing must have occurred in the solar nebula.
Planet Earth is in precise energy balance that provides a suitable environment for life support. Would you explain how radiation or absorption of certain amount of energy will increase the order and the information in the system, if is not not under the control of intelligence?That is a purely faith-based rationale, with no valid scientific justification. You are resorting to "common-sense" arguments that might *seem* logical to someone who hasn't studied thermodynamics, but are in fact quite bogus. "Order" is regularly created by random events: Consider "putting energy into" a bottle of oil & vinegar dressing by shaking it vigorously. What will you observe after the shaking stops? The random collisions of the polar & non-polar molecules cause the oil droplets to coalesce until the two phases are separated, thereby increasing "order".
Do you struggle with understanding the fact that random events do not create order in a system and do not increase information in it.
What is the interpretation of added 2nd laws in this case?
The second laws of quantum thermodynamics http://www.pnas.o...abstract
Planet Earth is in precise energy balance that provides a suitable environment for life supportthe funniest thing is how wrong it is
That is a purely faith-based rationale,
Stumpy, it seems that you become my second shadow. There is rarely a case to not comment me. The truth does not give you peace. What are your sins which make you so resistant to the truth? You know well that participants in this forum rarely read yоurs comments but despite this your persistence is impressive.
That is the proper interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics in this context.
What is the interpretation of added 2nd laws in this case?
.. the sun's biological energy ...You are always bringing that up, it is unclear what you actually mean, since of course the sun has no "biological energy" of its own. Do you mean radiant energy emitted by the sun and absorbed by biological systems/organisms?
There are no added second laws...;
Do you mean radiant energy emitted by the sun and absorbed by biological systems/organisms?
A theory of internet comment threads on anything based on science or religion. In one corner we have Science Trolls and in one corner religion trolls...
now you are trying to interpret physics? thermodynamics?
Must you be a jackass ALL the time? If you understood the first thing about thermodynamics, you would understand why my synopsis of that PNAS paper is essentially correct; it describes a mathematical study of how the 2nd law is manifested in QM or highly correlated systems. The authors claim to discover new manifestations of the 2nd law, but that is a semantic point, like saying the Clausius definition is distinct from the definition "all processes increase the entropy of the universe". The authors themselves state that all of their "new" laws converge to the "traditional" 2nd law as their limitations are relaxed.There are no added second laws...;
"...has uncovered additional second laws of thermodynamics which complement the ordinary second law of thermodynamics, one of the most fundamental laws of nature."
When anonymous fools simply reinterpret the findings or dismiss the citations I provide, like you just did, it is pointless to try to inform them.
Listen Ren, topics in the Bible go back much further some as far as Sumer so do a bit more reading and you might understand eh?
...They note that early meteorites carried with them ingredients that would react with nitrogen already in the atmosphere, producing a lot of hydrogen...' I'm wondering if there would have been enough meteorites to make the events 'probable'
@Whydening Gyre what do you think?
... all of their "new" laws converge to the "traditional" 2nd law as their limitations are relaxed.
my synopsis of that PNAS paper is essentially correct
Must you be a jackass ALL the time?
This titanic thought will go into history. Such a whirlwind of stunning thinking is rare mental phenomenon. You subterfuge as a female in this discussion. And start to wondering what you are. Man or women. If you are a man do not get in the female arguing style. It can be modern, but contra productive. I have not heard from you plausible explanation for mechanism of evolution. And will not hear, because you do not have the necessary knowledge and it shows in the way you give nonspecific abstract explanations whose meaning you yourself do not understand. Unprofessional and superficial.
Universe doesn't care if they are equal in value or not. it just slaps them together...
Universe doesn't care if they are equal in value or not. it just slaps them together...
What kind of biologically uniformed science idiot makes statements like that?
@Whydening Gyre didn't mean to put you on guard as it were; it's just I feel pretty confident about asking you a question and get a reasonable reply. Sometimes I feel that there is too much biodiversity and wonder if Earth wasn't 'seeded' in someother way. I do realise that EVEN if that were so then I'd still be left with the problem of how the 'original seed' came into being and that would probably bring me back to what you say. (I'm being non-specific since I don't want to cross threads). Thanks anyway
I chose Sumer simply because, as far as I'm aware, it was the first known ordered society with schools, courts etc and of course, their numerous deities...Enki etc
More experimental evidence of mutation and selection:
Biodiversity (only a nomenclature), is simply a matter of all the different ways things get "added" together. And believe me, there's a lot of different ways...
earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...
When anonymous fools simply reinterpret the findings or dismiss the citations I provide, like you just did, it is pointless to try to inform them. Like others, you will remain a biologically uninformed science idiot@jimmie
these additional second laws become equivalent to the standard one. We also prove a strengthened version of the zeroth law of thermodynamics, allowing a definition of temperatureso AGAIN< you are proven a complete IDIOT and your "interpretations" still stand at 100% WRONG!
This removes the "deep space" origins from further consideration by placing the anti-entropic epigenetic effect of solar energy into the context of amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation.WTF kind of word salad is THAT?
In this paper, we account for the wide range (approximately a few thousand permil) of nitrogen isotopic composition measured in solar system materials. Several theoretical models have been proposed to explain the nitrogen isotopic enrichments measured in meteorites (especially in organic matter) and in cometary ice (NH3 and/or HCN). These models include ion−molecular isotope exchange reactions and isotope self-shielding in the disk. However, a major limit is that there are no experiments to substantiate any model.you don't know BIOLOGY but you want to tell us about Astrophysics?
"Let there be light" is the operative / creative phrase, not let's mutate and emerge.@jimmie the IDIOT troll!
the sun's biological energy that created the light-induced amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in plants and animals.so, again, you are proven, with YOUR OWN SOURCES that you are a complete idiot pushing a religious DIATRIBE and nutcase PSEUDOSCIENCE over proven, actual science
@Whydening Gyre forgot to mention that earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...'That ratio for Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko turns out to be about 25 times less than that of the expected protosolar value....'Hmm, are you implying that because ONE comet has small N that all the billions of others also don't and/or that there isnt enough amoungst all of them to contribute to any ammonia upon collisions with planetary bodies ?
All interesting stuff.
Mimath224 offered@Whydening Gyre forgot to mention that earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...'That ratio for Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko turns out to be about 25 times less than that of the expected protosolar value....'Hmm, are you implying that because ONE comet has small N that all the billions of others also don't and/or that there isnt enough amoungst all of them to contribute to any ammonia upon collisions with planetary bodies ?
All interesting stuff.
Can u clarify please, why u would make such a comment re ONE comet in the context u have, its perplexing and suggests u haven't understood statistical sampling methodology ?
@Whydening Gyre forgot to mention that earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...'That ratio for Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko turns out to be about 25 times less than that of the expected protosolar value....'
All interesting stuff.
This titanic thought will go into history.
Such a whirlwind of stunning thinking is rare mental phenomenon. You subterfuge as a female in this discussion. And start to wondering what you are. Man or women. If you are a man do not get in the female arguing style. It can be modern, but contra productive.
I have not heard from you plausible explanation for mechanism of evolution. And will not hear, because you do not have the necessary knowledge and it shows in the way you give nonspecific abstract explanations whose meaning you yourself do not understand.
created plants GEN 1:12 ... long before he created the so called LIGHT
phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE) as an experimental platform to study evolving protein
Genesis 1: 3 (KJV)@moron jimmie
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the nightKJV
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
The same old unsupported bs from jvk.
Anyone who thinks the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled link from ecological variation to ecological adaptation is not a fact established by experimental evidence should provide an alternative to this model:to piggyback on ANON's post...
there is a MUCH simpler model that makes far more reaching and power predictions that have been OBSERVED as well as demonstrated time and again: Evolution
For about the fifth time now
to piggyback on ANON's post...
besides jk's models inherent FAILURES as noted here
Nucleic acid folding is certainly not at odds with Neo-Darwinism.
Only the simple-minded biologically uninformed science idiots that participate here would conclude that "Evolution" is a model "...that makes far more reaching and power predictions..."!jk
Are you as ignorant of biologically-based cause and effect as Andrew Jones?
FOr every scientific and validated FACT that Jones links, you flood the site with 3-5 THOUSAND characters of irrelevant or (more often thatn not) MISINTERPRETED science and claims that actual studies support your conclusions
I'm eagerly waiting, and hoping, that the other Ptolemy sniff tests had enough nitrogen...
I'm sorry to hear of this misuse of my statements.--Villarreal
... It is not difficult to conduct laboratory experiments in which a selection scheme can be applied that will strongly favor a particular variant ('mutant').
Villarreal clearly supports mutation and selection
See instead: http://comments.s...228.1298@jk
WTF?Villarreal clearly supports mutation and selection
No he does not!
SO
I'm sorry to hear of this misuse of my statements. It sounds like he is making selective statements to support some belief he holds
Mutations perturb protein folding...http://www.scienc...88.short@the IDIOT jk
I'm sorry to hear of this misuse of my statements. It sounds like he is making selective statements to support some belief he holds
you seem awful proud to be TROLLING a serious science magazine...
the link you have there to ScienceMag in NO WAY supports your stupidity regarding anti-mutations and them all being bad, etc
It sounds like he is making selective statements to support some belief he holds
It sounds like he is making selective statements to support some belief he holds
This view does not preclude natural selection, but adds to it a much more capable process. It is not difficult to conduct laboratory experiments in which a selection scheme can be applied that will strongly favor a particular variant ('mutant').
I appreciate the fact that the comments are moderatedif they are allowing you to post your creationist stupidity, then they are NOT moderated
blahblah...means?it actually spells that out in the first paragraph, ya moron
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease. Each discipline can be viewed as a missing link in the other's description of biology, and in medicine.and AGAIN< you are proven to be 100% WRONG when you TRY TO INTERPRET science
When they stand before a throne ...@old
stand strong in saying they have a right to their opinion, no matter how wrong it may bethe problem comes when idiots like you start to fish for support, succor or acolytes on a SCIENCE site
What do you think "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" means?http://comments.s....124747
Have you beat your Darwinian Evolution theory into some sort of quasi scientific fact?
It's too bad some intellectuals can not fathom or believe in something that can not be proven such as God when their own theories are in many cases unprovable.
Did you read the paper? or anything beyond the title?
Darwin had nothing to do with evolution other than presenting a logical means of looking at it.
...base and codon changes in the DNA... are mutations.
Substitutions are the result of mutations.
Mutations perturb protein folding and are linked to pathology, which means they are not beneficialbut then you also say your own model causes mutations...
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
This is a yes or no answer
YES!so NOW you are saying YOUR OWN MODEL causes perturbed protein folding that is linked to pathology and it is NOT beneficial... so why do you keep posting it?
--Thanks for asking
biologically uninformed science idioteither that or mutated into horrendous stupidity
Life did not begin with mutations. It began with the creation of light-induced amino acid substitutions and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in plants and animals. There's a model for that. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353@jkTROLL
Whydening Gyre
Mar 18, 2015Einstein's "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler..) looks appropo, here...