seeing dead people

[Sad Max]

Spontaneous generation of a self reproducing proto cell has never been produced in any lab ever*,further there is NO KNOWN natural mechanism or physical/biological law that produces that kind of speficied complex information inherent even the in simplest cell.

the mathemical models calculated on computers have totally destroyed any hope of any real meaningful wishful thinking that it could be otherwise.

*please I challenge you or any scientest to produce this evidence. bring the forward.

Let's start at the kindergarten level, with Wikipedia:

Proteinoids, or thermal proteins, are protein-like molecules formed inorganically from amino acids. Some theories of abiogenesis propose that proteinoids were a precursor to the first living cells.
The inorganic polymerization of amino acids into proteins through the formation of peptide bonds was thought to occur only at temperatures over 140°C. However, the biochemist Sidney Walter Fox and his co-workers discovered that phosphoric acid acted as a catalyst for this reaction. They were able to form protein-like chains from a mixture of 18 common amino acids at only 70°C in the presence of phosphoric acid, and dubbed these protein-like chains proteinoids. Fox later found proteinoids similar to those he had created in his laboratory in lava and cinders from Hawaiian volcanic vents and determined that the amino acids present polymerized due to the heat of escaping gases and lava. Other catalysts have since been found; one of them, amidinium carbodiimide, is formed in primitive Earth experiments and is effective in dilute aqueous solutions.
When present in certain concentrations in aqueous solutions, proteinoids form small structures called microspheres or protocells. This is because some of the amino acids incorporated into proteinoid chains are more hydrophobic than others, and so proteinoids cluster together like droplets of oil in water. Many argue that these are not themselves alive in the traditional sense, but these structures exhibit many of the characteristics of cells accepted as living cells:

1. a film-like outer wall.
2. osmotic swelling and shrinking.
3. budding.
4. binary fission (dividing into two daughter microspheres).
5. streaming movement of internal particles.

It is thought that the microspheres may have provided a cell compartment within which biochemistry could have become concentrated and protected from the outside environment during the process of chemical evolution.
Proteinoid microspheres are today being considered for use in pharmaceuticals, providing microscopic biodegradable capsules in which to package drugs for delivery to a specific region in the patient's body.



***



Your turn. Let's see some mathematical models.

 

[Anhar_Miah]

Let's start at the kindergarten level, with Wikipedia:

Proteinoids, or thermal proteins, are protein-like molecules formed inorganically from amino acids. Some theories of abiogenesis propose that proteinoids were a precursor to the first living cells.
The inorganic polymerization of amino acids into proteins through the formation of peptide bonds was thought to occur only at temperatures over 140°C. However, the biochemist Sidney Walter Fox and his co-workers discovered that phosphoric acid acted as a catalyst for this reaction. They were able to form protein-like chains from a mixture of 18 common amino acids at only 70°C in the presence of phosphoric acid, and dubbed these protein-like chains proteinoids. Fox later found proteinoids similar to those he had created in his laboratory in lava and cinders from Hawaiian volcanic vents and determined that the amino acids present polymerized due to the heat of escaping gases and lava. Other catalysts have since been found; one of them, amidinium carbodiimide, is formed in primitive Earth experiments and is effective in dilute aqueous solutions.
When present in certain concentrations in aqueous solutions, proteinoids form small structures called microspheres or protocells. This is because some of the amino acids incorporated into proteinoid chains are more hydrophobic than others, and so proteinoids cluster together like droplets of oil in water. Many argue that these are not themselves alive in the traditional sense, but these structures exhibit many of the characteristics of cells accepted as living cells:

1. a film-like outer wall.
2. osmotic swelling and shrinking.
3. budding.
4. binary fission (dividing into two daughter microspheres).
5. streaming movement of internal particles.

It is thought that the microspheres may have provided a cell compartment within which biochemistry could have become concentrated and protected from the outside environment during the process of chemical evolution.
Proteinoid microspheres are today being considered for use in pharmaceuticals, providing microscopic biodegradable capsules in which to package drugs for delivery to a specific region in the patient's body.

Sorry that doesn't qualify, I said proto self-reproducing cell, not simple building blocks,

I ask for a complete house, and you show me bricks.

The challenge still stands.

and Had you read that wiki article that you provided completely:

"There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life."

 

[Sad Max]

Ah yes the classical "Bad design" argument that’s very easy to answer:

Darwinist calls it "Adapted", ID’ers call it "Designed"

Adapted = Design (because they refer to the same thing)

Wrong. Adapted is not the same thing as Designed. When evolutionary biologists describe an adaptation they mean a process or component that originated to serve one function, then over time became modified to serve another. When creationists say Designed they mean conceptualized and constructed, to serve its present purpose, with no origin elsewhere and no modification into its present state.

I don't see how anyone could find the meanings of the words interchangeable.

If you say "Bad Design" by that logic it has to also be concluded: "Bad Adaptation"

Wrong again. A biological adaptation only has to work well enough. It only has to serve the most minimal survival/reproductive advantage over the next-best-thing, and if it allows the host organism just enough of an advantage to reproduce, that's good enough.

Whereas a purposely-designed mechanism, especially if created by some divine planner, is expected to work more efficiently, more reliably, and with zero built-in drawbacks or weaknesses.

Case in point: our lungs. An inhale/exhale cycle is only about one-third as efficient, as a flow-through design, which other animals' lungs have. But hey, one-third efficiency works well enough, and that's what we developed. A designer interested in efficiency and survivability would have given us the flow-through design. Where is it?

Case in point: our testicles. Because they develop inside the body and have to drop outside to where it's cooler for purposes of spermatogenesis, they are vulnerable, plus there is a necessary weakness at the inguinal ring, where they pass - meaning, we're prone to hernias there. But, this system works well enough, so there it is. A conscious designer with any concern for our comfort or safety, would have engineered a system wherein the testes stay up in the abdomen where they're protected, no inguinal ring, no hernias.

And the list goes on and on and on, not just in human physiology but that of other species, too. If you really want to argue for a conscious designer, you need to define that designer as either malicious, inept, or both.

However "Bad Adaptation" is an oxymoron, its a contradiction, if something is badly adapted it will fail, it will be filtered out by natural selection.

If it is badly adapted to the point of compromising reproductive fitness. If it's a adaptation that coincidentally offers some degree of advantage along with its particular drawbacks, there's no oxymoron involved, at all.

But for the same "Bad Design" Darwinist say, "look at that excellent adaptation" (it has to be for it to allegedly "evolve" that way)

Because a single adaptation may be both beneficial and detrimental, in different arenas or even in different genetic expression. For example, sickle-cell anemia: get one copy of the gene, and you have enhanced resistance to malarial infection (a definite survival advantage). Get two copies at the same locus, and you wind up with sickle-cell anemia (a definite survival disadvantage).

You are applying a horribly simplistic model here, that is so divorced from modern evolutionary biology as to be a nasty caricature of it. No wonder you reject the science, if you really believe that this is what the science suggests.

 

[Sad Max]

Sorry that doesn't qualify, I said proto self-reproducing cell, not simple building blocks,

I ask for a complete house, and you show me bricks.

The challenge still stands.

and Had you read that wiki article that you provided completely:

"There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life."

1. binary fission (dividing into two daughter microspheres).

Did you miss that? You ask for a 'proto self-reproducing cell,' and when I provide an entity with a list of cell-characteristics that self-reproduces, that's not good enough?

And, regarding the statement that there is no truly 'standard model,' so what? Yes, there are multiple experimental models with varying degrees of acceptance and support, all of which - all of which - are rooted in realities of chemistry, biology and physics. Unlike Genesis-type tales, they all share one important characteristic: they are based in real physical processes, don't violate any known laws of nature and don't require the invention of some supernatural agency, in order to take place.

 

[Anhar_Miah]

Wrong. Adapted is not the same thing as Designed.
I don't see how anyone could find the meanings of the words interchangeable.

Wrong,

We have a glass filled to 50% of the container, one calls it "half full" the other calls it "half empty" they refer to the SAME data point.

Looking at an organism, two people are looking at the same data point (i.e the organism) however drawing different conclusions. Thus they are referring to the same data point, JUST a different interpretation of it.

Wrong again. A biological adaptation only has to work well enough. It only has to serve the most minimal survival/reproductive advantage over the next-best-thing, and if it allows the host organism just enough of an advantage to reproduce, that's good enough.

Everything from "just enough" to "excellent" falls under one category "adapted", the other category is that it doesn't adapt (i.e. a "bad adaptation"), even by your own admissions the only thing that can be shown is adaptation (regardless of the level), but if you have jsut admitted that it is an adapdation then by that same reasoning there it can be equally justified as designed.

 

[Anhar_Miah]

1. binary fission (dividing into two daughter microspheres).

Did you miss that? You ask for a 'proto self-reproducing cell,' and when I provide an entity with a list of cell-characteristics that self-reproduces, that's not good enough?

Please, re-read your own article carefully:

"but these structures exhibit many of the characteristics"

and:

"Many argue that these are not themselves alive in the traditional sense"

and finally:

"Some theories of abiogenesis propose that proteinoids were a precursor to the first living cells"

i.e. not self-reproducing proto cells themselves, just some hypothetical precusor to it.

EDIT::

Ah right, you was refering to Fox's "Proteinoids", and you do realise what he did? he took some amino acids, added heat and in the end what did it produce other than these bubble like spheres? thats right use-less non-functional chemicals, totally nothing like a living cell.

 

[Ming]

Making a choice between a fantastical conclusion based upon superstition and perhaps a dose of wish-fulfillment, and a conclusion rooted in data and observations collected from repeated experiment, is hardly ignorance.

For example, there is experimental evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields can produce auditory and visual hallucinations, feelings of a 'presence,' and impressions of shadowy figures. And as it happens, observation has demonstrated that the Earth itself can naturally produce localized electromagnetic fields comparable to those used in the lab. So given (a) a neurological phenomenon that's known to exist, and an electromagnetic phenomenon that's known to exist, under rigorous lab conditions versus (b) feelings and creepy crawlies and 'unknown dimensions' whose existence has never been shown but in which we are for some reason expected to believe, does (a) or (b) impress as being the more likely general explanation?

That's only one example, but I think it's an illustrative one.

I haven't read beyond this post yet but thought I'd respond.

My belief is that everything we perceive is explainable in objective terms. However, science is often mis-used in the epistomology of metaphysics.

The simple gist of the false argument is as such:

P1 Every phenomenon can be explained scientfically.
P2 Data on such things as ghosts, the metaphysical, life beyond death, souls, angels, etc- rooted in folk lore, religion, mythology, superstition etc are based on non-scientific observation, are prone to embellishment, and cannot be recreated.

Therefore.. those phenomenon are false.

All to often we divide ourselves into camps with names like "believers" and "scientists" but in my belief system there's a reality that "is," completely regardless of what I believe or how I describe it. Sure the "scientific explanation" sounds more plausible than the "fantastic" but that's an appeal to false authority argument" unless people are going to qualify every statement they make regarding some scientific tidbit. I'm not trying to pick on you, but you mention exposure to EMF leading to feelings of a presence and hallucinations. Well wow... okay that's a mighty big hammer to swing argumentatively. With that one piece of info you completely wipe out the credibility your opponent's senses and therefore ultimately anything he might say is brought into serious doubt.

I don't have much time but where I'd go with all this if I could is that;

In the end both the layman and the scientist are seeing the same thing and neither are without misconception. One must strive to be aware, it's not a passive task. This means being simultanously open and skeptical.

 

[Sad Max]

Wrong,

We have a glass filled to 50% of the container, one calls it "half full" the other calls it "half empty" they refer to the SAME data point.

An invalid simile.

We're not talking about a datum point on a graph. We're talking about the simple definitions of two different words with two very different meanings. Talk about graphs and glasses all you like; in biology designed and adapted still don't mean the same thing.

Looking at an organism, two people are looking at the same data point (i.e the organism) however drawing different conclusions.

An organism is not a datum point in this discussion. An organism is a complex functioning entity, and you are advocating one entire integrated system for explaining its complexity and function, while I am advocating another. Mine is actually supported by observation and experiment. Yours is not.

Thus they are referring to the same data point, JUST a different interpretation of it.

Using phrases like 'data point' (properly, datum point) does not make your argument any more scientific, or valid. An organism isn't a datum point; if you insist on using such terminology, it's a collection of many millions of points, all in constant flux as the organism's life-processes chug along and it interacts with its environment.

Everything from "just enough" to "excellent" falls under one category "adapted", the other category is that it doesn't adapt (i.e. a "bad adaptation"),

I think now you are trying to move away from this:

If you say "Bad Design" by that logic it has to also be concluded: "Bad Adaptation"

Which I addressed, and to which you forgot to respond. The standard for what makes a "good" or "bad" adaptation is not the same as what makes a "good" or a "bad" design. There is no excuse for a conscious designer - particularly an omnipotent one - to hand in something like the human spine, or appendix, or esophagus/trachea interface, or testicles. On the other hand, it is perfectly consistent for a biological system to develop an advantage that works just well enough and may even carry some penalties, that in large populations don't matter because once the organism reproduces, its primary biologic function has been served.

even by your own admissions the only thing that can be shown is adaptation (regardless of the level), but if you have just admitted that it is an adaptation then by that same reasoning there it can be equally justified as designed.

Only if you are using a dictionary in which adapted and designed are interchangeable. Which they are not, and have never been.

Do you think you can argue this topic, without having to re-define words away from their accepted dictionary and colloquial usage in order to keep going?

 

[Sad Max]

Ah right, you was refering to Fox's "Proteinoids", and you do realise what he did? he took some amino acids, added heat and in the end what did it produce other than these bubble like spheres? thats right use-less non-functional chemicals, totally nothing like a living cell.

Amino acids have been synthesized from inert components in the lab too, starting with nothing but basic stuff like ammonia and nitrogen and adding high energy inputs in the form of electric arcs.

So the process still begins in the lab with inert matter; the wiki picked up at the point where amino acids had been created, which was a step toward creating the proteinoids.

And I wish you'd actually read the wiki through, because you'd have come to this:

these structures exhibit many of the characteristics of cells accepted as living cells:

1. a film-like outer wall.
2. osmotic swelling and shrinking.
3. budding.
4. binary fission (dividing into two daughter microspheres).
5. streaming movement of internal particles.

Now, please read what's directly above this line, maybe once or twice through, just for fun, and then tell me again that it's just

thats right use-less non-functional chemicals, totally nothing like a living cell.

 

[Sad Max]

Oh, and it's still your turn, to furnish your models supporting the impossibility of biogenesis without divine intervention.

 

[taormina]

Sad, you are just as religious about your atheism as I am about my....theism.

Funny how the term zealot can apply to evolutionary theory.

You cannot definitively prove one fact about evolution, not one fact. That's why it's still called the theory of evolution. Therefore, believing in the concept of evolution also requires a lot of......faith.

 

[Anhar_Miah]

An invalid simile.
We're not talking about a datum point on a graph. We're talking about the simple definitions of two different words with two very different meanings. Talk about graphs and glasses all you like; designed and adapted still don't mean the same thing.

You are right they do not mean the same thing, but they are refering to the same thing, simple question, are they refering to the same thing, yes or no?

Naturally the answer is YES, they are refering to the same thing, meanings of words do NOT have to be the same thing in order to REFER to it.

Mine is actually supported by observation and experiment. Yours is not.

Heres a twist, I actually support evolution! BUT I make a clear difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution, (I do not support the later, due to lack of scientific data)

So I actually I do agree with all the data.

Using phrases like 'data point' (properly, datum point) does not make your argument any more scientific, or valid. An organism isn't a datum point; if you insist on using such terminology, it's a collection of many millions of points, all in constant flux as the organism's life-processes chug along and it interacts with its environment.

Unless you have an exact factual statement/point to counter, these comments are not needed.

I think now you are trying to move away from this:

Which I addressed, and to which you forgot to respond. The standard for what makes a "good" or "bad" adaptation is not the same as what makes a "good" or a "bad" design. There is no excuse for a conscious designer - particularly an omnipotent one - to hand in something like the human spine, or appendix, or esophagus/trachea interface, or testicles. On the other hand, it is perfectly consistent for a biological system to develop an advantage that works just well enough and may even carry some penalties, that in large populations don't matter because once the organism reproduces, its primary biologic function has been served.

The whole "Bad Design" argument is very poor, most of the cases sighted are not actually bad designs, in fact its usually lack of understanding that makes some scientists to ASSUME its a bad design, however later it is proven that in actual fact those so called "bad design" turn out to be in actual fact excellent designs.

I'd challege any scientist the next time they come up with a so called "bad design" to design it better.

Only if you are using a dictionary in which adapted and designed are interchangeable. Which they are not, and have never been.

Do you think you can argue this topic, without having to re-define words away from their accepted dictionary and colloquial usage in order to keep going?

I'm not arguing by redefining the terms, I'll ask you again "are they refering to the same thing?" yes or no?

 

[Anhar_Miah]

Oh and Max I'm waiting for the Proto Self Reproducing Cell, Fox's Experiment does not count, why?:

Are these Proteinoids Living Cells?

YES or NO max?

 

[iSTy]

It's easy really... the woman in the other room killed her and couldn't handle the guilt. Your wife just let her know that her first attempt had failed so she went back and finished the job.

lol, next filmfest?

I see dead people all the time... or at least they look dead (I work at a bank).

or any office

so does anyone have any stories of the paranormal they want to share? :evil: :engel017:

When I was younger I was asleep in my bed when I felt a cat (assuming to be our pet cat) jump on the bed and settle itself down by my legs. I could hear it purring and felt the weight of it.

I, obviously, woke up and stretched out my hand to stroke her, but there was nothing there, yet I could still hear her purring and feel the weight of her.

I got out of bed, carefully moving my legs so as not to disturb her, and went downstairs to tell my mum. Her reaction??.......

"Oh, you've felt it too, I've often felt a 'ghostcat' jump onto my bed. I believe it must've been Sammy who died a few years ago"

 

[Ming]

People's ability to construct patterns out of static are well-documented. Once again, you don't need to invent a whole new field of physics, when there are perfectly functional explanations at hand, that work with already-observed and demonstrated phenomena. And, static being a random phenomenon, of course occasionally what appear to be recognizable signals will emerge.

Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that EVP, etc are considered 'fringe?' Don't you think that any observations with the slightest degree of legitimacy, would have stampeded thousands of grant-seekers and Nobel Prize-chasers into EVP research, if there were really anything there that a properly trained and conscientious researcher could use for a starting point? To be able to *really* talk to the dead?

I understand the desire to live in a more colorful, more interesting world where there are ghosts and spirits and messages from the dead and - heck, why not - fairies leaving us money for lost teeth, leprechauns with pots of gold and jolly red-clad gents who distribute toys on a yearly basis. But that's the kind of thinking that held us back, for centuries. It's a pity that the kind of critical thinking that has granted us extended life-span, reduced disease, high-yield crops and every other benefit of modern life, has not yet caught up, in popularity.

I beg to differ. There is much truth in myth. Instead of dismissing the occult/supernatural as being outdated and for the ignorant we should embrace the past continuing to share and learn from it. This doesn't mean believing the world is flat. It means understanding the context in which that belief was held and being able to juxtapose such concepts with the present. People who look down their nose on the past are doomed to repeat the ancestors mistakes. There's truth in every mistaken observation and falsity and ambiguity in every truth. This is the nature of existential loneliness- that we're all swimming.. together in truth to the very last electron and are doomed never to be able to share any of it with any degree of ontological certainty. So be it. Art as expression tells as much if not more than some stuffy scientific analysis. The belief that "S C I E N C E ! !" (think Thomas Dolby for the full experience I'm having) is our saving grace is as dangerous and ignorant (and potentially much moreso if you ask me) as blindly following mores handed down for centuries, especially given the miriad of potential misuses for science. (chemical, biological, nuclear to name three keywords)

 

[Ming]

When evolutionary biologists describe an adaptation they mean a process or component that originated to serve one function, then over time became modified to serve another.

Not at all. When one speaks of an adaption as having "originated to serve a function" and then "over time having become modified to serve another" you ARE absolutely speaking in the language of a creationist. That is design theory. No quote, "'evolutionary' biologist" is going to say such things.

An adaptation is simply any characteristic that is passed on, period. There is no function "in mind," and by function you may as well just come right out and say "purpose."

Discovering how things function doesn't come with the wisdom use the information. One thing in your posts that I do agree with is the assertion that both a) what we quantify as data points are quite often not at all, and b) things are in constant fluxuation.

But what of mathemetics then? You have 3 apples, take away 2, how many data points are then left. Answer: not enough info to possibly reply.

Language is matter of convention, but mathematics?? "1" is something- "0" is the lack of "1" and everything else is derivative. How does this apply to ghosts? "Ghost" is a word for something which exists without being, much like "0." You can laugh zero away if you want to because you can't show me nothingness.. but seeing is believing isn't always the wisest course. Believing without seeing is also often ill-advised.

 

[Capt Quirk]

When I was younger I was asleep in my bed when I felt a cat (assuming to be our pet cat) jump on the bed and settle itself down by my legs. I could hear it purring and felt the weight of it.

I, obviously, woke up and stretched out my hand to stroke her, but there was nothing there, yet I could still hear her purring and feel the weight of her.

I got out of bed, carefully moving my legs so as not to disturb her, and went downstairs to tell my mum. Her reaction??.......

"Oh, you've felt it too, I've often felt a 'ghostcat' jump onto my bed. I believe it must've been Sammy who died a few years ago"

We have felt something very similar, but more like a medium sized dog doing circles before laying down. This started at the old house, just after my dog was put down. My wife and I both have felt it on numerous occasions, but not very much since we moved. Every time I feel it, I would kick thinking it was the cat, but my foot never connected with anything.

 

[Capt Quirk]

The belief that "S C I E N C E ! !" (think Thomas Dolby for the full experience I'm having) is our saving grace is as dangerous and ignorant (and potentially much moreso if you ask me) as blindly following mores handed down for centuries, especially given the miriad of potential misuses for science. (chemical, biological, nuclear to name three keywords)

Science only works for you, IF you understand what it is you are dealing with. If the equation doesn't work, you may not have all the parts.

 

[Hawk Teflon]

We have felt something very similar, but more like a medium sized dog doing circles before laying down. This started at the old house, just after my dog was put down. My wife and I both have felt it on numerous occasions, but not very much since we moved. Every time I feel it, I would kick thinking it was the cat, but my foot never connected with anything.

I'm glad I'm not your cat.

 

[Capt Quirk]

I'm not a cat person :evil: