RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: Intellectual Honesty, Robert Shapiro "Origins"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,05:44   

Quote
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences;


Quote
the Nature poll of some 650 evolutionary scientists


Do I need to point out your outright falsehood in your two statements?  I probably do.  First, it was 517 members, as posted by you, not 650.  Second, it was members of the National Academy of Sciences, not solely evolutionary biologists.

You still have not admitted that you made up the 2% figure.  You are a liar.

I don't give a flying fig about what the "correct" form of F=ma is, because it is irrelevant to the topic.  You made the comment that SLOT "operates" on evolution.  I said SLOT is not relevant except in the same way that F=ma is relevant and invited you to explain how it is relevant.  You have yet to do that.  NOTHING (including evolution) violates SLOT, just as NOTHING violates F=ma, but neither law OPERATES on evolution and both are irrelevant to the topic.

Quote
You can easily enough check the posts at evcforum.net or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.


You made the assertion that leading evolutionary scientists think the genetic code is not really a code.  I don't even know what you are getting at there, so I asked you to back it up.  I asked what leading scientists.  When you make an assertion and are asked to back it up, it is YOUR responsibility (your homework) to bring the relevant information into the discussion.  It is not my responsibility to go digging for some nebulous information that may or may not be what your nebulous claim is about.  If you want to convince me of anything, the onus is on YOU to present your arguments, not on me to dig around trying to figure out what your arguments are.

Your conduct has shown nothing but contempt and dishonesty.  If you think that dishonesty is the way to win a debate or score points in a discussion then you are meeting the criteria of a Creationist to a T.  That does not work here, however, since I actually value truth.  You will have to bring some truth with you and not a bunch of lies if you want to score any points with me.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,06:02   

Just to name one who wrote extensively as to SLOT being the controlling physical law in operation over all time and in throughout the universe you might make your brain acquainted with the writings of Azimov on the subject but really if you're that ignorant of physics and chemistry et al I consider it demeaning to even be in contact with you.

And while your sticking my trojan horse survey  (which you lapped up like a little tired puppy) up you b---- you might also pick somewhere else to post or at least another thread... I am tired of trying to teach you 5th grade chemistry and physics..  go get your whippings else where.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,06:07   

Dear Russy,

Schwartz, J.H. (1984) The evolutionary relationships of man and orang-utans.
Nature 308, 501-505.

Schwartz, J.H. (1984) Hominioid evolution: a review and a reassessment. Current
Anthropology 25, 655-672.

Schwartz, J.H. (1988). The Red Ape: Orang-utans and Human Origins. Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston.


After you stick this up your butt you fart brained moron you might consider an aopolgy

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,07:56   

Quote
And while your sticking my trojan horse survey  (which you lapped up like a little tired puppy) up you b---- you might also pick somewhere else to post or at least another thread... I am tired of trying to teach you 5th grade chemistry and physics..  go get your whippings else where.


Ha ha, so I've already gone from third to fifth grade?  The funny part is that your poll is not a very good representative sample.  I also don't believe you were using it as a Trojan Horse, but you stumbled upon it after the fact and are now lying about having it all along.  Plus, you are still making up the 2% figure, whether we go by your poll or not!  That makes you a liar.

I challenge you on your characteristic of Azimov.  Show me where that is.

If you think it is demeaning to be in contact with me, then too bad.  You opened up this discussion and I joined.  You've shown nothing but dishonesty.  Instead of trying to lord over me, you might want to address that issue, especially since IT'S THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,09:07   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 02 2005,10:10)
I don't expect you to really appreciate suffering complete humiliation in public but it really was enjoyable letting you bloviate about polls and your superiority  for a while just so I could ram the Nature poll of some 650 evolutionary scientists up your b--- and watch you wallow in pain.

F=MA is not the generic form itd F=ma/gsubc to make sure the difference between equality and proportionality are properly understood. Did that concept not come across in third grade for you?

And you're right you surely could not be the A.B.C.D  ad finitum team because none of them are so iliterate as to suspend SLOT as the controlling mechanism in chemical and physical processes in evolutionary theory.

SLOT does apply to evolution as to every process in the universe so far as has ever been theorized or observed.

See these two examples of your complete incompetence in these matters render it meaningless to joist with you further.

You can easily enough check the posts at evcforum.net or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.

I have no doubt you think SLOT is inoperative reguarding the physical mechanisms of Evolution.... you probably think gravity is a temporary law, FLOT is ripe for violation and the third law is superfluous because no one lives in a place where the temperature aproaches absolute zero.

The only closed system I see is the mindset of the evo community railing at people for daring to challenge their hynotically induced thought processes.

I'm sure you will anyday now be sending me peer reviewed papers showing naturally separated levo form optically pure amino acids spontaneoulsly forming polypeptides and proteins from simple diamers powered by sunlight on the side of a volcano or maybe R. Dawkins hot tub. Whats a little thermodynamic barrier like free energy  (alternately entropy) when you have raw sunlight in prebiotic conditions (no photosynthesis or any imaginable rectification /conversion mechanism).

Oops forgot we don't consider SLOT in evolution.

Oy.

Quote
F=MA is not the generic form itd F=ma/gsubc to make sure the difference between equality and proportionality are properly understood. Did that concept not come across in third grade for you?


Ummm, SigmaF=MA is Newton's actual law.  F=ma/gsubc may be a modified equation used for certain situations, but the GENERIC FORM is SigmaF=MA.  That is the definition of the word [/i]generic.

Quote
SLOT does apply to evolution as to every process in the universe so far as has ever been theorized or observed.


Of course the Second Law of Thermodynamics applied to evolution.  What several people have tried to make clear to you is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent evolution.  Completely different issues.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to every aspect of the universe, and evolution follows it precisely.  Why do you think we have a food chain?

Quote
You can easily enough check the posts at evcforum.net or this thread to see the position that the genetic code is not really a code , there is no real information content in the human cell and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I haven't the time to do your homework for you.


See, the reason people are getting frustrated with you is that you fail to grasp the actual point of what people are saying.  Yes, the genetic code is a code in the sense that it is a set of information which can be interpreted.  No, it is not a code in the sense that it was purposefully written out.

Quote

I have no doubt you think SLOT is inoperative reguarding the physical mechanisms of Evolution


No doubt you need to reread my posts.

Quote
you probably think gravity is a temporary law


Nah, not unless you subscribe to the "Intelligent Falling" theory.

Quote
The only closed system I see is the mindset of the evo community railing at people for daring to challenge their hynotically induced thought processes.


You do irony very well.  "Hypnotically induced thought processes?"  Sounds like religious catechisms.

Quote
I'm sure you will anyday now be sending me peer reviewed papers showing naturally separated levo form optically pure amino acids spontaneoulsly forming polypeptides and proteins from simple diamers powered by sunlight on the side of a volcano or maybe R. Dawkins hot tub. Whats a little thermodynamic barrier like free energy  (alternately entropy) when you have raw sunlight in prebiotic conditions (no photosynthesis or any imaginable rectification /conversion mechanism).

Oops forgot we don't consider SLOT in evolution.


hahaha.  I'm willing to bet good money that you don't even understand half of that, you just copied it from some ID website.  I especially like how you called entropy "free energy."  Hilarious.  And when you said raw sunlight wasn't energy.  I mean, ####, it's not like EM radiation is energy or anything.

By the way, had you actually read any scientific literature, you'd understand that metabolism and excretory systems are how organisms deal with the Second Law.  I probably shouldn't even have written this, because you'll completely misapply it to something else, or otherwise misunderstand it.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,11:27   

Quote
Please supply one reference to any  scientist who claims -or any analysis that indicates- that we are closer  (I assume you mean more closely related) to orangs than to chimps.  

Dear Peachy: please note the tense in the above quote. I'm not asking you for historical, provocative, hypotheses that didn't pan out. You see, Peachy, that's the thing about science. It sort of converges on answers. Sixty or seventy years ago, there was some non-ridiculous difference of opinion over what the genetic material was. But if I were to ask for a "reference to any scientist who claims - or analysis that indicates - that protein is the genetic material"... I don't know, maybe in your weird universe you think they still exist. They don't in mine.
Quote
After you stick this up your butt you fart brained moron you might consider an aopolgy  

Looks like someone flunked charm school. But, no, I don't think any "aopolgy" is due. Not to you, anyway.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,11:39   

Hyper, Now is this supposed to be the a team coming to the fore?? Yuk!

Wiipedia or any of 100 sites

Newton's Second Law: Fundamental law of dynamics

Alternative formulations:

   * The rate of change in momentum is proportional to the net force acting on the object and takes place in the direction of the force.
   * The acceleration of an object of constant mass is proportional to the resultant force acting upon it.

See the word proporational its part of our common language. It means that in order to actually say predict a bodies acceleration given a known force applied one must have a system of units otherwise the numbers are meaningless. In this case the constant of proportionality is referred to as gsubc always and everywhere across all systems of units.

In the engineering system this is 32.2 lbm ft /lbf sec** 2 and in the metric its 9.8 kilogm meter/newton sec**2

You are correct that m and a are vectors.


Idiot just read this thread and you will see the precise statement by tour team that SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.

I never equated free energy and entropy you liar. I stated what antone with a brain knonws and that is that the reactions I referenced will not spontaneously occur because the products are in a lower entropy state than the reactants  and one may also say they will not occur because the products are in a higher free energy state. Thus they require a usuable form of energy.. not just energy from the sun in a raw form but energy transduced and made usable by a coupled mechanism.. say for example photosynthesis (which unfortunately for your team did not exist in the prebiotic world) in the plant kingdom.

If you want to argue that one cannot predict whether a reaction will occur spontaneously and what direction it will go if at all using either entropy considerations or alternately free energy considerations.. go ahead .. it crystalizes your ignorance.

Entropy clearly does not prevent the  processes of lifew occuring now because the entire system of proceeses and reactions are in place simultaneously and systemactically. It is a constrained, open , flow-through system with a series of mechanisms for (in our case) transducing biomass energy into atp via metabolism and from there electrical voltage potentials for the CNS.

The problem is how did such a system arise incrementally, from non-life to life and so up the entropy latter or down the free energy latter prior to any transducing mechanisms in place neither photosynthesis or metabolism nor any imaginable rational mechanism to harness the raw energy available. An orchid plucked from the ground an laid in the sunlight gets hot ,,, it willl never bloom.


Again the arrangement of the GC letters into sequences of very substantial length in the case of a protein has been claculated many, many times by good scientists, Shapiro in the subject book works out the best possible case of a simple replicator sequence of twenty code letters at 1/10**20 and that is one such entity in a hostile prebiotic sea  with no chance to survive reproduce be selected  etc.

As to the source it comes from reading Shapiro, various texts, Denton et al everyone knowns the problem of  diamers to amino acids of the correct form for proteins, in optically pure concentrations never occurring naturally in any experiment with prebiotic conditions. You always get 50/50 L&D forms .... racemic mixtures. Are you denying that??

It wouldn't be wise to attempt some money-whipping exercise with me ... I'd say don't go there.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,15:44   

Evopeach,
F=ma

You liar.

There's no gsubc anywhere on that page.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2005,19:28   

Quote
Idiot just read this thread and you will see the precise statement by tour team that SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.


This is the last post I'm making on this topic.  You clearly misread other people's posts.  What they were saying was that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevent as a criticism of evolution.  Evolution obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  All your handwaiving has really done nothing to show otherwise.

After all, creating a star, a unit which not only emits large amounts of energy but also creates "order" in the sense that it fuses smaller atoms together into larger, more complex ones, requires only large amounts of hydrogen and gravity.  The force of gravity provides the energy necessary to begin hydrogen fusion.  And incidentally, before you post something ignorant on this subject, hydrogen fusion does not violate the Second Law because the release of energy that results adds to the entropy of the universe as a system.

And the sun was not the only possible energy source, geothermal heat from deep sea vents is another possibility.  In addition, there are many methods of processing energy from inorganic substances, called chemoautotrophic processes.  For instance, organisms can metabolize CO2 and Hydrogen into organic molecules, methane, and energy.  You may be correct that the metabolic processes followed by plants and animals may not have been possible in the early Earth, but plants and animals are fairly recent groups, occuring only in the past 600 million years.  Do some research on anaerobic metabolism if you're really interested.

Truth be told, though, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  Scientists have shown how organic molecules, amino acids, and nucleotides can be formed from inorganic molecules present in the early Earth in Miller's experiments.  They've shown how organic molecules can spontaneously form simply spheres with lipid bilayers similar to cells.  They've shown how short RNA polymers can act as enzymes and also how short RNA polymers can self-replicate.

Now, what alternative hypotheses are there that still explain observed evidence?  If the dominant scientific hypothesis can show step by step with one small gap, and the alternative hypothesis shows no evidence and says that none can be found, then it's not difficult to figure out which to accept.  Furthermore, this is still all irrelevent, because the origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution any more than Big Bang Cosmology is a part of Geology.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,05:26   

Well congratulations you are the oly known person who still clings to the totally discarded theories of Urey Miller Fox and such regarding origin of life experiental results.

No one sees any ... repeat any correlation between racemic mixtures of amino acids in a "tar" mixture created by contrived conditions (little things like cold traps) or coacervates or protenoids as even remotely demonstrative of abiogenesis. Soap bubbles and shaving creme has many of the same characteristics.

This is to say nothing of the free energy considerations which for amino acids to more complex life required molecules is directionally prohibited. See that is a thermodynamic problem at the time of origin.

Not one of the mechanisms you mentioned have a shred of experimental evidence in pre-biotic science to confirm them as remotely likely.

The author of the subject book Dr. Shapiro at least had the honesty to confess all of the above and oh that little gap you mention ... he calculates the simplest replicator as being possible in the pre-biotic conditions as at best 10**-20 to 10** -10000 depending on the assumed replicator. He is only one of several "evolutionists" not IDers or creationists who conclude the same numbers.

RNA first being very nearly the most unlikely / impossible proposal.

But laughably as usual your team of dishonest demigogs have conveniently established the position that whatever is impossible, non-demonstrable, mutually exclusive from rationality, observation or experimental result is declared unimportant, disconnected or on the verge of being resolved.

What a shame that your darling Carl Sagan, primo cult evolutionist for 30 years, lived a fruitless, non-contributing life since his entire work was just a waste of time in the new evolution team's view.

One problem..  hundreds of biology and life science textbooks, articles, tax payer sponsored projects, tv documentaries,, etc. all concentrating on the continuous process necessity and certainty of big bang to abiogenesis to humanity and all we see.

No little sweety pies we won't let that idiocy go unnoticed by the American populace so don't even dream of putting that intellectual scam over on anyone.

Now about that hydrogen gas to the human brain problem.

See.. if my friend tellme one morning he got to work by jumping from a hot air baloon into the parking lot wearing a parachute.. I would question that, even though possible, knowing there were an infinite number of ways or paths available to him or her.

But if the next day they tell me they jumped from the top of a neighboring mountain with a Superman suit on and glided to the office.... well I would likely get them some medical attention.

Moral:  Just because your team can imagine possible just so stories without a scintilla of evidence to back them up ...  many patently rediculous on their face... does not mean rational people have to accept any of them.

We are just warming to the task so buckle on your helmet kids its going to be a bumpy ride.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,08:49   

GCT,

Now that you have firmly established yourself as the resident moron herein, you might note that the M is a constant involving the mass adjusted by the porportionality constant gsubc but since anything beyond long divisiom is over your dense head .. well lets just say you're a mental clown.

Oh and if you're not familiar with units try plugging in say: For a exercise remember the acceleration of gravity is 32.2 ft/sec/sec (3rd grade science) defines what a 1 bl force is.

1 lb force =1 lb mass * 32.2 ft /sec/sec

What goodness Mr Moron poster thinks 1 = 32.2 ?? What a pitiful level of understanding.

Now lets go back to me alias  Mr. Genius and plug in 1/gsubc = 32.2 lbm ft/lb ft sec**2 and what do you know the fundamental equation actually works and gives the correct answer.

Hint: It works the same way in other unit systems.

Please tell me you have some educational credential beyond Jr. Hi.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,09:23   

1 lb mass?  Mass is not weight.

The funny part is that I don't even care who is right (as I've already stated).  This is all sidestepping on your part because you've been completely unable to back up your arguments.  So, you resort to arguing about side issues and hurling insults in order to keep from having to back anything up.  That to me screams that you have nothing substantial at all to say, and to accuse others of deceit when you have shown nothing but deceit is the height of hypocrisy.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,10:56   

Of course you care as your continuing line of BS about F=MA continues, blah blah blah. What you can't abide is my ability to expose your total incompetence and ignorance of the most basic scientific facts.

Weight is the element of force dummy as in lb force and mass is lb mass as I have elucidated in kids language just for you.

Newton is force, Kilogram is mass, acceleration is 9.8 m/sec/sec and our old friend gsubc is ... you guessed it 9.8 kg m/newton sec**2

See then the gravitational force equation works in that system as well.

You might try reading Origin's by Dr. Shapiro before commenting further as that was the subject reference material.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,10:56   

As Wikipedia notes:

Quote
In physics, the newton (symbol: N) is the SI unit of force, named after Sir Isaac Newton in recognition of his work on classical mechanics. It was first used around 1904, but not until 1948 was it officially adopted by the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) as the name for the mks unit of force.

A newton is defined as the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared.


You can find it here.

Thus, showing that the units do work without your gsubc.  1N=1kg * 1 m/sec/sec.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,11:15   

Hyperion,

I rather understand the direct and uncontestable stupidity of your team once you leave the bone cleaning theatre or perhaps move up from dissecting a frog.

Here is an exact quote from GCT in the thread:

5.  SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.  If you think it does, then state your case.

Now is that one of those statements so nuanced and esoteric we can't understand it.

Your distortions, half-truths, Alice In Wonderland just so stories and outright misrepresentations are typical and ample evidence of why the DI and its supporters will indeed get the facts on the table concerning this pseudo science of macroevolution, natural origins in front of the American people.

NOTHING  TO DO WITH ... get it goober brain.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,12:10   

I stand by what I said.  Beyond the statement that evolution does not violate SLOT (as it doesn't violate F=ma which got us on that whole side topic) the two having nothing to do with each other.

Your gsubc is dimensionless, since N=kg*m/sec^2.

Before you go off on my understanding of science, make sure your own house is in order.

That said, it still does not matter to me.  All of this is side issue.  You have not brought one intelligent argument into this discussion which you started.  You have utterly failed to show intellectual dishonesty amongst evolution supporters while capably showing your own.  Doubtless, you will answer this with more evasion and more attacks on my intelligence, which will only demonstrate my point all the more.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2005,19:04   

Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 06 2005,16:15)
Hyperion,

I rather understand the direct and uncontestable stupidity of your team once you leave the bone cleaning theatre or perhaps move up from dissecting a frog.

Here is an exact quote from GCT in the thread:

5.  SLOT has nothing to do with evolution.  If you think it does, then state your case.

Now is that one of those statements so nuanced and esoteric we can't understand it.

Your distortions, half-truths, Alice In Wonderland just so stories and outright misrepresentations are typical and ample evidence of why the DI and its supporters will indeed get the facts on the table concerning this pseudo science of macroevolution, natural origins in front of the American people.

NOTHING  TO DO WITH ... get it goober brain.

Oh holy shit, that totally disproves all of evolutionary theory, because some guy on a website wrote something that was not completely precise.  Holy fucking shit

Look, I don't know what he meant, and I don't know why you seem to think that quoting a guy on a web board is somehow going to disprove evolution, but THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DOES NOT DISPROVE EVOLUTION.  If it did, it would also disprove the ability of your body to develope from a single zygote.  So congratulations, you have officially proven that you do not exist.

This is the last thing I'm going to post.  Your arguments show a lack of maturity or logic, you dredge up straw men and make tangential arguments.  Furthermore, you accuse people of failing to provide evidence, or assert that evidence does not exist, but so far you have not actually shown any evidence yourself.  You either have some serious misunderstandings of several scientific principles, or you are willfully ignorant.  Some of us come to conclusions based on available evidence, you choose to pick your evidence to fit a preconceived idea.  Actually, I'm not sure what preconceived idea you seem to have, because so far you have not posted a theory to explain existing evidence.  If current evolutionary thought is incorrect, then what do you posit occurred?

Whatever, this is pointless.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,05:23   

Yes, I suspect it will be as I demonstrated clearly that your team precisely stated what stated I said they did ... and left with no way out you chose the typical canibalism of that person and assertive dismissal.

I have not stated that SLOT makes the current life processes impossible.. show me where I have.

What is apparent is that the underpinnings of evolution are at odds with SLOT in the origins of life and that all attempts to bridge the enormous chasm between non-life and life, first replicator, step by step development of the cell and on up to the human brain including self awareness of mortality and congnitive thought remain totally unsupported by any proposed evolutionary explanation to date.

There were no energy conversion mechanisms performing metabolism or photosynthesis to permit the energy flow through open constrained far from equlibrium systems that characterize life as we know it to be and to have been.

There is no explanation for self organization and separation of L&D forms of life molecules never not ever in pre-biotic conditions.

The free energy  or alternately entropy directional constraints on just the chemistry is well known to be opposed to self organization once we leave the monomer to biomer activity. This is not even debatable.. its "black letter law".

So is SLOT making life impossible today .. of course not just inexorably moving it all toward death and equilibrium at a pace very much slowed by the complex processes we observe.

My argument from day one is that your own experts say all of the above in their singular moments of honesty.. I give you Dr. Shapiro whose thrust is after exploring all the alternatives ...Although none of the proposals have any remotely convincing evidence or argument, as a scientist I cannot embrace a metaphysical explanation (of origins) but rather await some as yet unknown laws which support a natural explanation.

Yet here I see post after post rehearsing discarded proposals, experiments, hypotheses and such that its as though people have attempted to stop the clock, rewrite history, assert reality of their choosing rather than what is observed.

As I started unless there are more Robert Shapiros and far fewer Dawkins and his ilk herein you will be just another crowd of Phlogistonites grasping to the mast and yelling at people as your ship sinks.

But that may be not all bad.... so stay the course "true believers".

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,06:16   

SLOT discussion

Funny, I don't feel cannibalized.  I also back up what I said.  You have not met your burden of proof.  I can also count your lies for you if you like, I'm already up to 4 or 5.  And, you continue to engage in ad hominem attacks.  Additionally, I see no mention of your gaffe over gsubc.  How is it that the units don't line up again, when your definition of gsubc is unitless?  The problem is that you are confusing weight and mass.  They are two separate things.  If someone gives you a weight, you have to convert it to mass.  If that weight is in lbs, then you must divide by 32.2 ft/sec^2 to convert to mass.  Perhaps that is where you got your notion of using gsubc?

I still maintain, that it's all irrelevant.  You haven't explained why SLOT is any more relevant to evolution than F=ma.  Plus, even if there is a free energy problem during abiogenesis, it does nothing to rule against evolution, since the two are completely separate issues.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,06:27   

Evopeach

Professor Shapiro has just confirmed to me that he is not a supporter of ID nor any form of creationism. He finds current theories of the origins of life unsatisfactory (please note this is abiogenesis, not evolution, which many others have pointed out to you, are not the same) and argues that the way forward is better science.

He also recommends his later book "Planetary Dreams" (Wiley 1999). Thank you for directing me to this source.

GCT

I'm wondering why you are arguing about Newton's second law of motion (summed up as F=ma) when SLOT refers to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Excuse me if I misunderstood something here.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,06:57   

GCT wrote
Quote
NOTHING (including evolution) violates SLOT, just as NOTHING violates F=ma, but neither law OPERATES on evolution and both are irrelevant to the topic.


Sorry, GCT, missed this earlier.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,07:55   

GCT

You're coming late to the game and having 12 hours of  "A" in classical mechanics, statics, dynamics and such I throughly understand Newton's Laws.

The constant of proportionality which in my textbooks and engineering work is always called gsubd can indeed be  one in some systems, though as illustrated previously not in the engineering system.

Of course as I previously stated weight is a force and mass is a derived quantity and a constant classically. In the case of gravity the weight varies with position relative to the dominant body and its mass..


As to SLOT you're position remains untenable as every chemical reaction and physical process which enable your evolution is constrained by SLOT directionally, energetically and in relation to the surroundings.

If slot were not acting living things would essentially operate at near 100% efficiency, not deteriorate and live forever begging accidents and  physical attack..... never be driven inexorably to disorganization, maximum entropy, equilibrium and death.

If you can demonstrate that one chemical or physical reaction in life processes and thus evolution is exempt from SLOT please do so.

The world awaits your solution to the perpetual motion machine or the fountain of youth.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,08:06   

Quote
If you can demonstrate that one chemical or physical reaction in life processes and thus evolution is exempt from SLOT please do so.


Do you read others' posts? Nobody has claimed that anything is exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Quite the opposite.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,08:15   

Evopeach

Professor Shapiro is not your friend.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,08:26   

Alan,

Please that propaganda is rewriting history and attempting a big CYA because of the enormous flaw in the evolutionary paradigm.

Standard biology books and other natural science texts always have extensive chapters and references to origin of life theories and they are directly linked in one continuous presentation to the way life emerged and evolved.

If the two are divorced why are they so presented and linked .... one might as well have a presentation of basketball rules or any other truly unrelated matter but such is not the case .. always origins, abiogenesis, Urey Miller, Fox, Oparin, et al Prigorine, all devoted to showing that evolution is absolute and predestined etc.

I never said Shapiro was anything other than an evolutionist but an honest one in his total disregard for all theories of life origins to date. Not just inadequate  but rather so impossible as to elicit intellectual distain.

But he has at least admitted to the true state of affairs.. he just expresses his "religious faith" as believing that one day the new laws of nature will be revealed and be explanatory.

See if you can't get life naturally then evolution never existed because it has to have life to operate.

"Elementary my dear Watson... first one eliminates all the impossible explanations and whatever is left must be the truth"

Evolution as currently presented is impossible because it cannot explain its beginnnings nor demonstrate its operation from life to the world we see by its stated but inadequate operative.

When one encounters a prediction with a likelihood on the order of 1/ 10** 1000 or such as Shapiro and other evos have themselves pointed out in every endeavor known to man we should attribute those events happening even once as a suspension of natural law.. a miracle.

This applies not just to the first replicator but to the supposed millions of steps up to the first complex invertebrate of which we have not a whit of explanation, other than worm holes and fairy tales.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,08:45   

Debunking of incredible odds

Evolution separate from abiogenesis

So, which is it with F=ma?  Do the units work with gsubc or don't they?  If they don't, then how do they work when you add in a unitless entity?  Also, how does your example of:

1 lb = 1 lb * 32.2 ft/sec/sec work, considering you have a force on both sides, thus you aren't following the correct equation?

Quote
"Elementary my dear Watson... first one eliminates all the impossible explanations and whatever is left must be the truth"


Do you really want to go down that road?  Do you really think you can eliminate all possible explanations, leaving only god as the final solution?  That's an impossible task, since we can't know what all the possible solutions are.


Alan,
No worries on missing my argument, it's cool.  In fact, it's better than cool, because in that post you've done something that Evopeach would never do, and that is admit that you missed something.  That's a good example of intellectual honesty IMO, and something that Evopeach has been utterly unable to show us.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,09:42   

You mischacteized my statement... typical intellectual dishonesty.

1 lb force = 1 lb mass * 32.2 ft/sec/sec was my showing that one must use a constant of proportionality to get equality and correct answers.

That was your incorrect result in engr units.

So we need a gsubc term in the denominator to get correct units and numbers, its that simple.. why does it evade you?  

1 lb f = 1 lbm * 32.2 ft/sec*2/32.2 lbm ft/lbf sec*2

1 lbf = 1 lbf looking good

now in other sytems one can define the force unit such that gsubc becomes unity and dimensionless as with the newton.


Newton's quoted definition in Sears and Zemansky pg 75 clearly says F is proportional to a ...., the equality can only be inserted when the units are defined and included, period.



1 newton= 1 kg* 1 m/sec*2

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,09:56   

Fox

I never said I knew Shapiro or claimed he was even an acquaintance... what are you talking about.

If He in his utter discouragement with evolutionary theories or explanations for life wants to appeal to Theosophy and the Occult so called Life Force so be it.

It has no basis in fact, no data, no evidence and is just a man-made mystical philosophy.

I has equal creibility with the entirity of evolution... from hydrogen gas to synapse remember?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,11:31   

Quote
I never said I knew Shapiro or claimed he was even an acquaintance... what are you talking about.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2005,11:37   

Evopeach

Professor Shapiro is not your friend in that he does not support your "arguments". I would stay and engage you in a battle of wits but you appear to be unarmed.

Best wishes
Alan Fox

  
  228 replies since July 25 2005,16:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]