"Darwin Day" Topic

Hi

Doug, you misunderstand. there are intermediate brains, they just died out.

there are other long necked geraffe intermediates, but most died off.

The reason I talked about sickle cell is that it crops up and usually leads to a dead end.

Now, going back 5 or 6 million years, Dogs and cats had a common ancestor. There are dozens of intermediaries between then and now for small cat like preditors, and most died out. Arguably, the advantage your house cat had was being one of dozens of feral small cats in the middle east, ONE of which was successful because it associated with humans.

And there are lots of now extinct protowolf types, most didn't work, dogs went with association with man, most didn't and are on the edge of extinction.

Now the specific line of big brain hominids WE sprang from weren't the only, but the survivor. AND, I think objectively, about 75,000 years ago, our line was the minor line and on the edge, we were the thinnist, weakest of the brains. We survived, Neanderthalensis, florensis and others did not.

That being said, as the over all line is only 1.8 million years old, while the cat line is three times longer, our line might die out as well.

OUR problem is that the costs of the brain are huge in both energy and compromises involving what you consider "natural tools". And it is approaching a dead end in expansion for THIS particular specialization due to limits in the hips of women! Those bigger brains we have in SF would be a creatuire that could only be grown artificially.

So, this still might be a dead end.

EVEN WORSE…There are dozens of similar but distinct species for almost everything. Mostly, you have a successful line that while expanding, starts "drifting" into separate sub sepcies, then species. Lots of genetic diversity.

OUR direction included unprecidented mobilty meaning, in short, that as a world wide single UNIFORM species, we are vulnerable to a single cause of species collapse.

Red Wolves might be extinct or on the verge, but there are dozens of the "Lupus" species. There is only the ONE HOMINID.

Now, slow boat interstellar travel might produce multiple hominid species in the future. But, arguably, we are vulnerable.

Rocky

You'll have to do more than state this (or at least point to some scholarly, peer-reviewed papers/presentations that put this idea forward) to have me take it seriously…

Rocky Russo gave me his copy of Scientific American, Sept 2009 issue: all about the Origins of things. The article on The Mind, by Marc Hauser, starts out like this:

"Not too long ago three aliens descended to Earth to evaluate the status of intelligent life. One specialized in engineering, one in chemistry and one in computation. Turning to his colleagues, the engineer reported (translation follows): "All of the creatures here are solid, some segmented, with capacities to move on the ground, through the water or air. All extremely slow. Unimpressive." The chemist then commented: "All quite similar, derived from different sequences of four chemical ingredients." Next the computational expert opined: "Limited computing abilities. But one, the hairless biped, is unlike the others. It exchanges information in a manner that is primitive and inefficient but remarkably different from the others. It creates many odd objects, including ones that are consumable, others that produce symbols, and yet others that destroy members of its tribe."

""But how can this be?" the engineer mused. "Given the similarity in form and chemistry, how can their computing capacity differ?" "I am not certain," confessed the computational alien. "But they appear to have a system for creating new expressions that is infinitely more powerful than those of all the other living kinds. I propose that we place the hairless biped in a different group from the other animals, with a separate origin, and from a different galaxy." The other two aliens nodded, and then all three zipped home to present their report."

He goes on to say:

"Charles Darwin argued in his 1871 book The Descent of Man that the difference between human and nonhuman minds is "one of degree and not of kind." Scholars have long upheld that view, pointing in recent years to genetic evidence showing that we share some 98 percent of our genes with chimpanzees. But if our shared genetic heritage can explain the evolutionary origin of the human mind, then why isn't a chimpanzee writing this essay, or singing backup for the Rolling Stones or making a soufflé? Indeed, mounting evidence indicates that, in contrast to Darwin's theory of a continuity of mind between humans and other species, a profound gap separates our intellect from the animal kind. This is not to say that our mental faculties sprang fully formed out of nowhere. Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind. The evolutionary origins of our cognitive abilities thus remain rather hazy. Clarity is emerging from novel insights and experimental technologies, however."

He then itemizes the four distinctive differences of the human mind: Generative computation; promiscuous combination of ideas; mental symbols; and abstract thought. He then says:

"Although anthropologists disagree about exactly when the modern human mind took shape, it is clear from the archaeological record that major transformation occurred during a relatively brief period of evolutionary history, starting roughly 800,000 years ago in the Paleolithic era and crescendoing around 45,000 to 50,000 years ago. It is during this period of the Paleolithic, an evolutionary eyeblink, that we see for the first time multipart tools, animal bones punctured with holes to fashion musical instruments; burials with accoutrements suggesting beliefs about aesthetics and the afterlife; richly symbolic cave paintings that capture in exquisite detail events of the past and the perceived future; and control over fire, a technology that combines our folk physics and psychology and allowed our ancestors to prevail over novel environments by creating warmth and cooking foods to make them edible.

"…the archaeological evidence will forever remain silent on the origins and selective pressures that led to the four ingredients making up our humaniqueness."

He gives examples of similarity between human and animal minds, ingenuity and socializing. Then he says:

"These observations inspire a sense of wonder at the beauty of Nature's R&D solutions. But once we get over this frisson, we must confront the gap between humans and other species, a space that is cavernous, as our aliens reported."

He begins to illustrate this with the No. 2 pencil, made from four different materials combined into one tool. "…although that tool was made for writing, it can also pin up hair into a bun, bookmark a page or stab an annoying insect. Animal tools, in contrast -- such as the sticks chimps use to fish termites out from their mounds -- are composed of a single material, designed for a single function and never used for other functions. None have the combinatorial properties of the pencil."

There is more on the other mental differences of recursion and the skill to count/compute.

The essay concludes with:

"…Although scholars do not yet understand how genes build brains and how electrical activity in the brain builds thoughts and emotions, we are witnessing a revolution in the sciences of the mind that will fill in these blanks -- and enrich our understanding of why the human brain differs so profoundly from those of other creatures. …for now we have little choice but to admit that our mind is very different from that of even our closest primate relatives and that we do not know much about how that difference came to be. …There are significant limitations to our ability to imagine alternatives.

"If our minds face inherent constraints on what they can conceive, then the notion of "thinking outside the box" is all wrong. We are always inside the box, limited in our capacity to envision alternatives. Thus, in the same way that chimpanzees cannot imagine what it is like to be human, humans cannot imagine what it is like to be an intelligent alien [or TFW, I hasten to add -dl]. Whenever we try, we are stuck in the box that we call the human mind. The only way out is through evolution, the revolutionary remodeling of our genome and its potential to sculpt fresh neural connections and fashion new neural structures. Such change would give birth to a novel mind, one that would look on its ancestors as we often look on ours: with respect, curiosity, and a sense that we are alone, paragons in a world of simple minds."

And here we can segue to my pet theory on why TFW does all of this: "In all of my making I have been alone, and it is this making that I have done to escape being Void. It is better to make Light and Life in The World than to sit alone in the Darkness with Nothing."

I ask again: given the relatively infinite size of the universe and its evident age, what is the chance of our species having the most advanced mind in the whole universe? And given the mysterious suddenness of our separation mentally from all other species, what is the chance that this was (stupid) randomness/mutation/abberation and not a deliberate manipulation?

You need to provide some sort of evidence of this purpose before you use it to justify the reason for the universe…

I'm writing/replying to you, am I not? I feel driven to do it. If the universe didn't have any purpose I wouldn't waste my time….

…there are intermediate brains, they just died out.

I know that and you keep saying that. I've quoted you already on this head.

Marc Hauser makes the key point about the others that died out: they ALL died out in a relative "eyeblink" of evolutionary time. He points out the incredible rapidity with which our mental "humaniqueness" morphed away from ALL other species. Evolutionarily speaking, we came to be instantaneously. How did this occur? No answers so far.

I agree with the vulnerable part: I feel very vulnerable all the time. I also feel egocentrically immortal….

Well, it's not me that keeps these endless philosophical discussions going…

I feel that Last Hussar's snarky comment of two days ago was uncalled for, TJ.

This is hardly an endless discussion; especially since one of us in particular keeps getting cut off and sent to the hoosegow: but it IS closing in on 1066 posts :) ….

In the interests of progress towards a "Hastings" thread :)

Doug, you quote a source suggesting some modes of thought or intellectual abilities unique to humans. For the sake of argument I'll accept that – it really makes no difference to the arguments about biological evolution, the nature of any postulated initial cause, panspermia or anything else.

If we pick one of the abilities – "promiscuous combination of ideas" – and start with a plains-dwelling hominid, the only requirements for Darwinian explanation are

* That a form of the ability can arise by random mutation. Since all the abilities which distinguish Great Apes from their relatives had already done so, no reason to think this isnt practical. It could, for example, arise by a "kink" in the development of an infant brain that makes a certain group of cells larger.
* That the mutation is advantageous, or at least neutral – in an environment available to the carrier. I can certainly see that being possible – plains dwellers have a lot of different challenges, which vary over time. The normal pattern of mutations is that they happen and die out from time to time, until they happen in the same place as they are useful. (See Industrial Melanism in moths for a classic example).

Our ancestors at the time mentioned were almost certainly already a social species – that seems to go way back – so the advantage argument is "softened" a bit – if the group has advantage from individuals with the trait, and those individuals have improved breeding chances in the group (through pecking order/prestige/invention of Lynx deodorant) the jobs done.

Note that in the article 750,000 years – around 37,000 generations – is described as a brief period in the article. Its still time for a fair few trials at mutations and selction.

The Last Hussars's comments provided an accurate overview of what actually happened.

Ralph

Thank you crhkrebs. This thread was a minor 'yay Darwin thread' when it started. It isn't me, or crh, or Rocky et al, who are saying 'We think all the evidence is wrong, despite different disciplines independantly reaching the same conclusion, and prefer an explanation with no evidence'.

Doug- why arn't chimps writing Shakespeare, or singing great songs, or doing anything these primates are capable of? Why are you not winning the 100m at the Olympics, or designing the perfect GUI, or producing masterful symphonies? After all you do share 100% of your genes with people who do.

The brainiest chimp with your reasoning would be arguing on this thread, then: and the dumbest on this thread would be typing from a tree. Get real….

Get Real? How about answering his last question?

If the Universe IS intelligent, as you assert. And it "selects" for this intelligence, then why did the 2nd most intelligent being on this planet die out? Why did the 3rd most intelligent being on this planet die out? Etc., etc.

Let's face it, the jury is still out on intelligence being a good survival trait.

Ralph

Oh that: back to, "it's not perfect, ergo it's not ID".

The lesser intellect dies out precisely because of what you assert: natural selection for intellect dooms the lesser competitors.

The fascinating thing continues to be how "instantaneous" that competition arose….

Oh that: back to, "it's not perfect, ergo it's not ID".

Not perfect? I thought He-that-we-cannot-name is omnipotent, omnipotent and omniscient. Am I missing something?

The lesser intellect dies out precisely because……

Except for two provisos:
1) It wasn't just a "lesser" intellect. It was Homo Neanderthalis, arguably the second most intelligent thing ever to walk the planet.
2) Many non-intelligent species have been alive now for hundreds of millions of years with no sign of letting up.

…..natural selection for intellect dooms the lesser competitors.

Totally anthropocentric drivel. Cite an example, other than ourselves. Every bacteria, virus and insect on this planet, is evidence that the lesser intelligent competitors are doing just fine. They will all be still here after we are long gone.

The fascinating thing continues to be how "instantaneous" that competition arose….

What sort of time period are you labeling as "instantaneous"? Do you even know?

Ralph

"Totally anthropocentric…"

That's one of the problems I have with the "We're Special / Top-of-the-Heap" -claim: it's based on nothing more than rating certain arbitrary human qualities as better on a (surprise surprise) scale that places undue/undeserved importance on those qualities. I just don't see how/why being able to build a poptart or imagine a super-megalo-ultima-whatsit is in any way an ability/characteristic that stands apart as a reason for the universe being the way it is. I'm not suggesting that another species' ability/characteristic should be used instead: I'm saying they're all the same --they just are, and the universe just is.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the default condition of the existence of something is "nope, it ain't there". Like a purpose to the universe: typing replies on an internet forum is not justification/support for such a grand claim…it just means we have no lives! ; )

Not perfect? I thought He-that-we-cannot-name is omnipotent, omnipotent and omniscient. Am I missing something?

Yes Ralph, STILL. (and you meant omnipresent)

And I cannot discuss it here if I want to remain "free".

1) It wasn't just a "lesser" intellect. It was Homo Neanderthalis, arguably the second most intelligent thing ever to walk the planet.

And therefore in DIRECT competiton with homo sapiens. Most likely of all: they interbred and homo sapiens possessed the dominant genes for selection. Or, Neandertal and some other smarter hominid interbred and arrived at homo sapiens; even today, you could dress a Neandertal in a suit and tie and he'd just be a coarse-looking man: we've all known these types, male and female; there are still millions of these "throw-backs".

2) Many non-intelligent species have been alive now for hundreds of millions of years with no sign of letting up.

Now you are the one not remembering! Intelligence adapts itself suitably to survival: none of the non hominid intelligences are in direct competition with us for dominance. Dominance in the competition means extinction eventually for the lesser intellect when they can't get physically away from each other. Our species is the ONE that walks the entire earth. Nobody can get away from us.

Totally anthropocentric drivel. Cite an example, other than ourselves.

It is only about ourselves and our immediate hominid competitors that I am talking about. As our intellect is utterly unique, then comparison to the "animal" intelligences is a non sequitur.

What sort of time period are you labeling as "instantaneous"? Do you even know?

Did you even read the transcription of Marc Hauser's, "The Mind", essay that I provided? Hauser said that our appearance on the scene took but an "evolutionary eyeblink" for hominids that think like we do to manifest….

That's one of the problems I have with the "We're Special / Top-of-the-Heap" -claim: it's based on nothing more than rating certain arbitrary human qualities as better on a (surprise surprise) scale that places undue/undeserved importance on those qualities.

So Hausers "four unique areas" of thinking are "arbitrary", interesting.

"Surprise surprise", Hauser seems agnostic or atheistic to me. So where's the surprise in his conclusions? He sure isn't pushing for TFW behind everything (even though his points really do support my views on our intellect vis-a-vis the rest of the animals').

I just don't see how/why being able to build a poptart or imagine a super-megalo-ultima-whatsit is in any way an ability/characteristic that stands apart as a reason for the universe being the way it is. I'm not suggesting that another species' ability/characteristic should be used instead: I'm saying they're all the same --they just are, and the universe just is.

You're reading a "TFW did it!" into my "fan" interest in Hauser: he's becoming guilty by my association with him here. In fact, if you read back carefully, I haven't said that our species on this planet was because "TFW did it!" I said that we are evidence of a genetic manipulation (Arthur C. Clarke's "monolith" if you like, whatever). For pages and pages on this thread, I have not put forward "TFW" as directly responsible for anything empirical we see, in the sense of "hands on", putting animals in some mythical Garden, etc.

…it just means we have no lives! ; )

I was waiting for you to say that. :) Now that we agree on something, how do we inject some "purpose" into our "no lives?"…

1066 is MINE! BWAHAHAHA!!!

In all honesty, I'd have been truly upset if anyone else had claimed the post.

Most likely of all: they interbred and homo sapiens possessed the dominant genes for selection. Or, Neandertal and some other smarter hominid interbred and arrived at homo sapiens;

Are you making this up? Not according to the Neanderthal Genome Project boss, Dr. Svante Paabo.

Yes Ralph, STILL. (and you meant omnipresent)

Yes I did, thank you. So your comment, ""it's not perfect, ergo it's not ID" is clearly wrong.

Now you are the one not remembering! Intelligence adapts itself suitably to survival: none of the non hominid intelligences are in direct competition with us for dominance.

So what? The most successful species are those that do not use, need, rely on intelligence. It's simple anthromorphism on your part.

Congratulations on reaching 1066 posts. I'm sure that had a bigger bearing on this thread than the content.

Ralph

"We are special, simply because we THINK we are.

We are special and unique. We weren't made special and unique, we just killed off or caused to die off, the other special creatures who were also special, just like us. That's how we got to be unique.

Because we are special, everything else on this planet is not special, not as special as us anyway.

The universe is also special.

It is special because we are special. It was made for us to be special in. It was made especially for us to enhance our specialness.

Therefore the special people and the special universe had to have a special beginning. This is the Special Cause.

People who believe in a Special Cause are special, especially because they THINK they are.

Everything is especially special, especially for us!"

Now if we could only get Dr. Seuss to make this rhyme, I think we could have a best seller children's book.

Ralph (I'm outta here)

Paabo: 'While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.'

Read more: link

How is that me, "making this up"? You act like you never heard this before I said it.

I still consider the presence of "modern Neandertals" in our midst as convincing evidence that interbreeding occurred, at least at a sufficient level to cause the "throw-backs" this long afterward.

So your comment, ""it's not perfect, ergo it's not ID" is clearly wrong.

? I was paraphrasing YOU: you seem of the school that as this universe is obviously random and imperfect, mutating/morphing all the time, that this is proof of the non existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient TFW.

I am saying that "perfect universe" might be something entirely different than our subjective definition of what "perfection" is. Imho, this universe IS perfect for what is intended.

Congratulations on reaching 1066 posts. I'm sure that had a bigger bearing on this thread than the content.

Were you helping "me" to reach 1066? How thoughtful of you. Thanks to all my friends for the fun….

Hi

Sorry, Doug. The idea of N and HS interbreeding was current before we did DNA analysis. Close isn't close enough, and the art is not "evidence".

The bones really don't suggest this. There is overlap in time, but not species. Newspapers are notoriously bad at science.

We got all excited in the Archo world when the initial DNA work was done…until it was realized that the guyw working in the hill were not following the guidelines to prevent transfer.

it is similar to the specious stuff about the Egyptians and Mayan being in contact because of artifacts with tobacco residue…from the modern diggers.

Itis called "contamination".

Take away the facial hair, and there is no living human who would look like a Neanderthal. Really. And conformation isn't proof of anything in any case. Thus all cat species LOOK alike But that doesn't mean that the 40 odd small cat looking species interbreed.

R

Take away the facial hair, and there is no living human who would look like a Neanderthal.

Tell that to the Nat Geo. I remember one of their "put the flesh and skin on the bones" projects where they went even farther and dressed their Neandertal as a businessman. I've seen guys that look like that….

Hi

Conformation isn't genetics. Zebras look like horses painted funny.

Rocky

That isn't what you said: you said, "Take away the facial hair, and there is no living human who would look like a Neanderthal. Really." So we have "the bones tell you something." And they tell Nat Geo, et al. imaginative anthropologists (I guess) something else.

Genetics is still NEW, with a lot of unknowns yet to be tracked and pinned down. I was positing earlier today, that Dickie was quite the throw-back. I know, you said he had some mutation/disease/syndrome (whatever) that made him look the way he did with his proportions, etc. But what if a Neandertal recessive gene crops up here and there, and it isn't really a disease at all in those cases that LOOK the same? You see "Dickies" in every race, just like you see Down Syndrome in every race and it is unmistakable. I am not suggesting that Down isn't an abnormality/error and I am not suggesting that Dickie didn't actually have a known condition (whatever the name is, you'll remind me I'm sure): it just seems possible that (some of) these "primeval" looking people might be evidence of a recessive Neandertal ancenstry….

Hi

Err…no. Dickie wasn't a throw back, and don't hold me to making a joke that dickie and I shared.

"Looking like" isn't the same as genetics. And you are now dancing around one of your complaints against evolution and FOR ID, that if man wasn't a special creation, that there would be evidence of several other Human Like species as there are chimp size/brained species.

So, my point was that there were several species in the Hominid line going back to a common branch about 2 million yearsd ago. So NOW, you explain, without any actual understanding that ONE of them might have been actual Sapiens Sapiens base don appearance.

This is similar to suggesting that all red headed men are brothers.

S/S and S/N have a common ancestor, but were different species. THAT is the point. The Hominid line had a number of species and all of them failed except ours. OURS was close to failing when it could be argued that a couple of the others were more likely to continue. But didn't.

On the scale of geology and evolution, that we survived our cousins in Neanderthalensis by 40,000 years ia a blink in time, and in the long run might prove to be none at all.

R

Anyway – Happy birthday Darwin…

Wow, TJ. That's a far cry from your first post. Remember?:

I for one will lament what beliefs his theory led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.

I asked you what you meant. Of course you never answered. Portents of things to come.

Ralph

Hey, it's less than 2 weeks to Newtonmas.

I don't get that….

I found this guy who is just a wacko.

The same guy that said the color of a parrot proved design.
Well not it turnes out he's a expanding earth beliver.

So he's a realigious fanatic, a creationist, and now a expanding earthist.

Someone is bucking for the idiot of the year award

Okay, what is an "expanding earthist"? (Must dash, can't Google it right now….)

You had to ask Doug….

expanding-earth.org

All you have to note is the same crazy use of fonts and colours that you're dealing with people who would reject modern geology and biololgy

Compare to this site:

home.flash.net/~evt/rapture.htm

File along with creationism, intelligent design and move to the heading of kooks.

That's just insane. Where did the water come from? If the expansion is so slow that science can't detect it, how is it detected? How can something undetectable be expanding exponentially? Because of this imperceptible expansion, all measurements, grids and maps are now inaccurate???

I have no response for the Rupturists….

The rapture site is fun to watch. So far this year the rapture was due to take place on 9/11, 9/15, 11/11…….

Actually I'm doing my part, I signed up with this organisation to help:

eternal-earthbound-pets.com

Yes, someones cats are getting a safe, loving home if it happens.

Maybe TJ can help us understand the whole question of the expanding earth, it seems to fall within his area of 'scientic' expertise along with earth dating and such.

I would also point out that the rapture site agrees with the 'science' advanced by TJ.

An interesting lecture of Evolution Denialism by an evolutionary biologist, enjoy:

YouTube link

Man that guy is getting on my nerves, I give him the entire makeup of the interior of the earth, I explane how plate techtonics work, I even mention that Africa is chrashing into europe and India is doing the same into asia, I also mentiod that we've had sevral super contients and we are going to have sevral more to come, and he just ingnores it.

I called him a ing troll, and I'm going to get warings for it, but thats what he is

Er… Hasn't virtually everything I referred to here come from peer reviewed scientific journals…? Science? Nature? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science? Etc, etc, etc.

On the other hand, how many times was I referred to pillars of scientific truth like… YouTube? Wikipedia? Etc.

William James said this:

A great many people think they are thinking when in fact they are merely rearranging their prejudices.

Yep; see that a lot here…

Give up on it Doug – I have.

Doug, as this thread started with a celebration of Darwin, I thought I'd remind everyone we are coming to the Birthday (25 Dec) of one of the most important men to have ever lived.

Newton.

A lecture given by a friend of mine who is a Professor of Biology at University of Minnesota Morris. It took place in Minot ND, and someone kindly posted it on Youtube. I give the link.

BUT THAT IS NOT FRAKING GOOD ENOUGH FOR TJ.

He has to see it given on some other medium, that isn't Youtube. I here the plaintive bleeting of a sheep somewhere in the distance "Youtube is'nt scientific, unlike the stuff that come out of the Discovery Institute."

The one thing I have learned form these posts is that TJ is incapable of answering strieght questions, but I will try again.

WHAT MEDIUM WOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU TJ?

Note to Bill, call someone a Troll and you are sent to the dawghouse, behave like a troll and you get a pass. What gives?

Note to Bill, call someone a Troll and you are sent to the dawghouse, behave like a troll and you get a pass. What gives?

If you can convince me that someone is trolling, then I'll Dawghouse the individual. But in this case, I'm not convinced… sorry.

Well my acount got suspended until the 20th on the other forum, simply for calling a troll a troll

Er… Hasn't virtually everything I referred to here come from peer reviewed scientific journals…? Science? Nature? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science? Etc, etc, etc.

Please refresh my memory, TJ. When you stated that Evolution contravened the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, what peer reviewed journal were you quoting from?

When you stated, "No abiogenesis = no life at all = no biological evolution", what peer reviewed journal were you quoting from?

When discussing the age of the moon, and you stated, "…the 320 million is a maximum; it could be anything less by the creation/Flood framework.", what peer reviewed journal were you quoting from?

Etc., etc. I could go on. There are 22 pages of material.

The times that you do quote from actual journals I have found that you have misread and misunderstood and misquoted the actual information.

Many times the scientists you quote say the opposite things that you attribute to them. Remember Popper and the others who you have quoting criticisms of evolutionary theory? Turns out they are all evolutionists. Even Michael Behe, the great shining light of anti-Darwinism, has admitted to being an evolutionist.

As to the comment of us using You-tube and other sources, this was for YOUR benefit. I answered this on Oct 6 10:00 am if you took the trouble to read it.

This entire thread is a testament to your blinkered ignorance. I hope you are proud.

Ralph

"Blinkered ignorance" can be such a facile, cheap shot: applied to just about anyone from some other perspective.

Scientific consensus, when focused on "fly specks", becomes meaningless when applied to the question of the universe (to say nothing of the concept of the multiverse) as a whole.

On the subject of how life manifests on those statistically insignificant planets: science is only just beginning to formulate theories that can be tested. As I said elsewhere: to look only at the earth for answers as to how life got started here is surely a myopic approach to the subject. Only cosmology can hope to find answers to the question, "How did life begin on Earth?"

Whole branches of science are hopelessly "blinkered" without looking to cosmology….

On the other hand, how many times was I referred to pillars of scientific truth like… YouTube? Wikipedia? Etc.

TJ, from my post dated 10 May 2009 11:09 a.m. PST:

1) Kalapos MP. The energetics of the reductive citric acid cycle in the pyrite-pulled surface metabolism in the early stage of evolution. J Theor Biol. 2007 Sep 21;248(2):251-8.
2) Trevors JT, Abel DL. Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life. Cell Biol Int. 2004;28(11):729-39.
3) Martin W, Russell MJ. On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophicprokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2003;358:59e83
4) Plasson R, Kondepudi DK, Bersini H, Commeyras A, Asakura K. Emergence of homochirality in far-from-equilibrium systems: mechanisms and role in prebiotic chemistry. Chirality. 2007 Aug;19(8):589-600.
5) Chessari S, Thomas R, Polticelli F, Luisi PL. The production of de novo folded proteins by a stepwise chain elongation: a model for prebiotic chemical evolution of macromolecular sequences. Chem Biodivers. 2006 Nov;3(11):1202-10.
6) de Duve C. Chance and necessity revisited. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2007 Oct 1;
7) Anet FA. The place of metabolism in the origin of life. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2004 Dec;8(6):654-9.
8) Pross A: Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism or replication first? Origins Life Evol Biosphere 2004 34:307-321.

Have you read them all yet?

Pete

As a side note I heard a very convincing argument the other day that the answer to Abiogenesis has more to do with Physics than Chemistry. Thought it was food for thought!

Pete

Well I would like to hear more about it, before I decide

But the border bewteen physics and chemistry is a blured one.

It's called chemical evolution what happens in stars, but it's fusion so it's realy physics.

But one thing is sure, abiogenesis is not biology

Well my acount got suspended until the 20th on the other forum, simply for calling a troll a troll

See "Troll Rule" in the FAQ: TMP link

Let me see if I understand the Troll Rule:

Bill says if someone is a troll on not.

We peons have no rights call the troll out and if we call an obvious troll a "troll" we are sent to the dawghouse for having the temerity to to outraged.

Peter,

You are wasting bandwith quoting sources at TJ. If they do not agree with his weltanschauung then they don't count.

What differes between TJ and myself and the other scientist here; we are willing to change my views if presented with fresh reliable evidence.

TJ, uses a standard theistic claim "well I used to be a Darwinist but…" then rejects every scientic underpinning of the scientific disoiplines of Cosmology, Geology, and Biology.

See "Troll Rule" in the FAQ: TMP link

Well, I had just given the guy the entire structure of the earth, from core to crust, then went on to explane how plate techtonics work, including menteonig how afrika and india actualy move into other contients. All of which defutes his "expanding earth".

He then dissmisses the whole thing in one sentens, to prove he didn't even read what I've said. this coupled with all the other things he has done and said, made it clear he was a troll as nobody is that stupid, Nobody, coma patiens have more brain them he would have had, if he wasn't a troll.
So I called him one in sheer frustration.