« First « Previous Comments 81 - 120 of 141 Next » Last » Search these comments
Check out the way bacterial biofilms form and organize "circulatory systems" for nutrients and waste, with no central nervous system. It's emergent complex behavior from simple systems. "Cellular automata" simulations are one way we explore the nuts and bolts of the phenomenon.
The principle of evolution scales up and down. Going back to the "leap" from abiotic chemicals to "life." While it's statistically vanishingly small odds, given enough time, space, and iterations, it's entirely plausible that somewhere, sometime, Goldilocks conditions of the right building blocks, reagents, catalysts, and a globule that could contain and protect them might come together.
richwicks saysHe's fun to listen to, like if you ever watched "In Search Of" hosted by Leonard Nimoy. I don't mind speculation, even crazy speculation, as long as SOME effort is made toward accuracy.
The zeitgeist that show came out in was when UFO mania was barely off its peak, and Erich Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods? was still considered "real/true" by many. It was refreshing the way Nimoy brought the methods of science to the screen.
I'm much the same way. Was rather stridently atheistic at 30, now in my mid 50s I understand much better the depth and breadth of change a lifelong faithful person would have to suffer through on an unwilling path from religious to scientist-like.
It's OK for people to believe in god, if that is what makes their worldview feel complete. It becomes NOT okay when these beliefs come to bear on policy decisions like outlawing abortion in an entire state, or believing the Second Coming will happen in modern Israel, and favoring that country in diplomatic and economic ways while hoping for/willingness to provoke "End Times" in the form of war to expedite His return.
This is still working with organized cell-based life, not with amino acids diluted in a massive salty ocean.
What kept the outside in from the premordial soup to begin with?
First life is now about 4BYA, instead of 2-3BYA as originally thought back in Miller-Urey's day
Well, the M-U experiment, ITSELF evolved over time to more accurately model the early atmosphere as our understanding of it improved as evidence was gathered and interpreted. As the model improved, the results got worse, then better. Since the M-U experiment isn't a full scale model of the early earth, and it runs on a vastly shorter time scale, it's disingenuous to infer that it could NEVER prove life from primordial soup, or that the fact it hasn't yet disproves its utility.
Creation of proteins/polymers in an uninterrupted MU-style experiment.
I consider the Bible an important and interesting piece of human literature
I am very much against dogmatism.
If what we have around is real, then I have just one issue with evolution: I can't explain how was first life created, even though I am familiar with so-called "prebiotic chemistry" and chemistry of DNA and RNA rather well. After first living bacteria everything is very easy to explain. But it is impossible to explain how very unstable molecules such as (initially) RNA and then DNA were formed and started self-replicating. They rapidly fall apart in lab if you synthesize them and leave them in elements...I think our struggle to comprehend "well, who created God" or "the chicken or the egg" stems from our primitive understanding of space and time. We think one-dimensionally or linearly about time, but methinks it's much more complicated than that.
I think our struggle to comprehend "well, who created God" or "the chicken or the egg" stems from our primitive understanding of space and time. We think one-dimensionally or linearly about time,
it's blasphemy to refer to the bible as literature.
richwicks saysI am very much against dogmatism.
But atheism is dogma.
Such a shame to have the noble "dog" in dogma.
Atheism is dogma, = bad science. Ironic as some athesists dogmatically shout down the concept of intelligent design.
Do you know in science you NEVER prove anything to be correct? All you're doing is proving what ISN'T correct,
richwicks saysDo you know in science you NEVER prove anything to be correct? All you're doing is proving what ISN'T correct,
Correct. Nor can dogmatic atheists prove there's no intelligent design. They just take it on "faith" that intelligent design is an impossibility, and can be obnoxious expressing that view. Bad science.
Just about every (un-scientific) dogmatic atheist I've run into, has some baggage from attending K-12 in Catholic Schools, having that dogma rammed down their throats. The non-Catholic / non-Christian kids whose parents bought them into those schools don't have the baggage, presumably because their parents told them to politely play along.
Atheism is dogma, = bad science. Ironic as some athesists dogmatically shout down the concept of intelligent design.
Correct. Nor can dogmatic atheists prove there's no intelligent design. They just take it on "faith" that intelligent design is an impossibility, and can be obnoxious expressing that view. Bad science.
Well I went to public school and became dogmatically atheist for a period of time simply because I felt I had been deceived for a good portion of my life, and I had a lot of evidence I was, and I still conclude I was.
I didn't have a particularly bad experience with religion, but the hypocrisy of it was just so infuriating.
richwicks saysWell I went to public school and became dogmatically atheist for a period of time simply because I felt I had been deceived for a good portion of my life, and I had a lot of evidence I was, and I still conclude I was.
I didn't have a particularly bad experience with religion, but the hypocrisy of it was just so infuriating.
Sounds like the baggage of the atheists I know whose rejection of Catholic education dogma turned them against religion. Confused inside their minds between religion (a human societal institution) and being open minded to the possibility creative design. So much baggage they cannot separate the two concepts inside their minds.
Ever heard of an atheist talk about the "god shaped hole in their heart"? That's what they are talking about. I don't know if ALL atheists feel this
By the way, somebody did the Monkey to William Shakespeare Writings experiment with 5 monkeys.
Note this experiment already assumes the existence of English language, specific English characters, and the existence of typewriters all arising naturally in order for the typing process to begin.
I used to believe in global warming, but I was frustrated that all the predictions it made were totally wrong.
If we see organized, specific data, based on abductive reasoning (see Karl Popper), we should assume intelligence, not natural processes, based on prior experience and observation, since there is no precedence for otherwise.
richwicks saysEver heard of an atheist talk about the "god shaped hole in their heart"? That's what they are talking about. I don't know if ALL atheists feel this
That's actually the first time I've ever heard this, and for me the answer is a decisive, "No, I don't have that."
I went to all 4 of what turned out to be new/curious church orientation/induction type meetings. It was interesting, but I was blunt about the parlor trick of "Hold the person's hand next to you and let God tell you what's on their mind." While the room erupted with cries of "OMG IT WORKS!" I just deadpanned to my neighbor that I didn't "hear" a thing. He acted kind of ashamed... that I didn't believe and avoided me thereafter.
Predictive value is a HUGE signal of the veracity of any data or claim. As for AGW, I consider the concept sound and evidence of effects visible. I agree the predictions of its proponents have been exasperatingly poor. I attribute this more to overselling than evidence of a sinister secret world government plot, and am personally inclined to attribute it to incompetence over malice particularly among overly enthusiastic lay proponents.
the real concern is "what can we do when we run out of fossil fuel"? That's a real problem, but the solution is distribution of energy resources, and that works against energy providers.
1. "fossil fuel" is actually not from dead animals at all, but abiogenicly generated by subducted water and limestones at the bottom of the oceans, after they come under the heat and high pressure caused by uranium and thorium decay inside the earth and the tidal force from the moon.
We are on the verge of being able to produce synthetic fuel from ocean water
It's irrelevant if fossil fuels are abiogenic or biogenic - it eventually runs out.
What synthetic fuel would this be? Hydrogen? It has very high energy density in terms of kg/watt but compression of it to transport it makes it very inefficient.
Ocean water has 50+ times higher CO2 content than the air.
"fossil fuel" is actually not from dead animals at all, but abiogenicly generated by subducted water and limestones at the bottom of the oceans,
That is not saying much. CO2 is a trace element in the air, and even multiplying that by 50 leaves the CO2 concentration very low. Let's do some math:
A gallon of JP5 (basically kerosene with additives) weighs about 6.5 pounds. At least two thirds of that hydrocarbon is carbon. Just how much sea water do you think you would have to strain to get the 4 pounds or so of carbon you would need to make that gallon of JP5? Keep in mind that CO2 is only about 1/3 carbon. And if were one to strain all that CO2 out of the surface of the sea, you would essentially starve all the algae/plankton in the area that consume CO2. That would also affect the ocean oxygen concentration since that removed CO2 would no longer be converted to oxygen by the plankton/algae photosynthesis.
Limestone itself is a product of "dead animals."
As for algae and planktons, the limiting factor for their growth is not CO2 in water but iron in water.
I never knew this. Usually it's phosphorus which limits plant growth on land.
The CO2 content in ocean water is plenty high enough for the process that the US Navy is trying to make jet fuel.
CaCO3 from shellfish and coral is produced in massive quantities everyday in nature; even white beach sand is made of the stuff.
the limiting factor for their growth is not CO2 in water but iron in water.
I never knew this. Usually it's phosphorus which limits plant growth on land.
Hydrogen? It has very high energy density in terms of kg/watt but compression of it to transport it makes it very inefficient.
I remember reading for-profit projects "fertilizing" ocean surface with iron dust for CO2 trading credits
Assuming more CO2 = more plant growth is simplistic and naive.
No. That is something that can be experimentally tested and proved.
Of course the amount of dissolved CO2 in sea water would depend on temperature and the bicarbonate effects, but generally tops about 337 ppm. So, a million pounds of water would have 337 pounds of CO2, and thus about 112 lbs of carbon. So at best 1 million gallons of water has only enough carbon to make 28 lbs of fuel. That is not even 1 minute of fuel for a fighter jet.
Yes, those beautiful white sand beaches are basically pulverized seashells. But the limestone that comes from quarries, makes up the Sphinx, and buried deep underground is the accumulation of millions of years of a slow process.
This may feel like a gotcha
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 120 of 141 Next » Last » Search these comments
My stance: Just happened!