Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 

 
luciddream00 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderatorₗ

Registered: 04-2018
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


Red: If the mutations aren't random, do you think they are directed? A god creating the mutations (sometimes horrible mutations that kill the being) are more believable than simple randomness? Is god involved when radiation mutates DNA?

Last edited by luciddream00, 4/21/2018, 11:50 am


---
Account closed permanently. I won't stand for abuse of authority by forum administration to censor criticism of a conservative radio host that celebrated the death of AIDS patients on his show. Maybe some day we'll speak again elsewhere.
4/21/2018, 11:48 am Link to this post PM luciddream00 Blog
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderatorₗ

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


quote:

If the mutations aren't random, do you think they are directed?



No, there seems to be a higher-level control program within DNA that detects and directs 'niche-filling'. This might operate by downloading information from non-local space -- a sort of Platonic Forms for information.

The rest of your question isn't in good faith.
4/21/2018, 5:10 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
luciddream00 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderatorₗ

Registered: 04-2018
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


quote:

No, there seems to be a higher-level control program within DNA that detects and directs 'niche-filling'. This might operate by downloading information from non-local space -- a sort of Platonic Forms for information.


Why do you find this more plausible than randomness? I guess I don't really understand why you think there needs to be an explanation other than randomness.

quote:

The rest of your question isn't in good faith.


It really wasn't, but it was based on the incorrect assumption that you were attributing mutations to god.

---
Account closed permanently. I won't stand for abuse of authority by forum administration to censor criticism of a conservative radio host that celebrated the death of AIDS patients on his show. Maybe some day we'll speak again elsewhere.
4/21/2018, 6:42 pm Link to this post PM luciddream00 Blog
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderatorₗ

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


quote:

Why do you find this more plausible than randomness?



Because you can't generate information from randomness:

"My favorite quirky science book is Rhawn Joseph’s “Astrobiology, the Origin of Life and the Death of Darwinism” (his website is also a hoot). As one might guess from the title, Darwin doesn’t survive Joseph. The Amazon reviews, many by credentialed people, are bi-polar, two-thirds 4-5 stars and one-third 1-2 stars.

Joseph is an eminent neuroscientist. Here’s an excerpt from his introduction to “Astrobiology”:

'Nevertheless, in seeking to understand my findings, I turned to genetics. I found that plants and humans share genes that code for seeds and neurons, and determined that the human genome and the genome of the higher plants share homologous DNA-promoters and binding domains (e.g. da and AS-C), including a similar “helix-loop-helix” motif which is involved in cellular divisions and neuron generation in vertebrates, as well as the production of ovaries and seeds in plants via CHS-A and –J promoters. These shared plant/flavone human/neural transcription factors, promoters, and genes act to regulate genetic transcription and thus the activation of other genes including those specifying neural vs cellular differentiation and development.'

'Question: How did the same genes and promoters come to “evolve” in completely distinct species? The common ancestor for mammals and plants diverged between 1 and 2 billion years ago; almost 1 billion years before the evolution on Earth of neurons, seeds or sex organs. Indeed, estimates of the times of divergence between eubacteria and eukaryotes, between protists and other eukaryotes, and between plants, fungi, and animals are approximately 3 billion, 1.7 billion, and 1.3 billion years ago, respectively.'

'As will be detailed in later chapters, there are an incredible number of basically identical genes and identical proteins, which have seemingly independently “evolved’ in completely distinct species.'

'The Darwinists explain away these and other common genes and traits by evoking “coincidence” – that nature arrived at the same solution in different species by accident and thus created the same exact gene by random chance; which is absurd. [References omitted]'

Although there are lots of ideas thrown out by Joseph, the core idea is panspermia and he comes to that conclusion primarily by looking at genetics. There is no way for DNA to have originated from clay on Earth as fast as it did (bacteria sign appears in some of the oldest rocks on Earth, meaning that microbes flourished from the moment the bombardment ended about 3.9 billion years ago), or at all, really. There is no precursor to DNA on Earth and there was no free oxygen or phosphorus (basic building blocks of DNA) on the pre-biotic Earth. And there is no way that life’s functions emerged from inanimate muck by random mutation on the smoking early Earth. So, the DNA tool box for life (in fact for building the entire ecosystem) just fell to Earth and was ready to go to work in any conditions it found itself in. Hey, DNA is a terraforming, eco-system building, niche-filling nano-machine."

From another direction, researcher looked at a disease causing bacteria in the middle of the Amazon jungle that had resistance to a drug. That was impossible. The resistance had developed in areas where an antibiotic was applied, but in this remote area, there was no way nor reason for the bugs to have developed the immunity to the drug. So, somehow the the local bacteria had downloaded the fix.

There are lots of anomalies like that that demonstrate positive mutations aren't random. I could link them, but KAI killed them.

Last edited by RedQ, 4/21/2018, 11:23 pm
4/21/2018, 9:55 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
luciddream00 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderatorₗ

Registered: 04-2018
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


quote:

Because you can't generate information from randomness


Sure you can, if the randomness impacts the ability for those random changes to be passed on to future generations. A "bad" mutation harms the ability to pass the genes on, and a "good" mutation helps pass the genes on. Repeat this process an incalculable amount of times and you have Humans, Apes and all the other species on the planet.

quote:


'The Darwinists explain away these and other common genes and traits by evoking “coincidence” – that nature arrived at the same solution in different species by accident and thus created the same exact gene by random chance; which is absurd. [References omitted]'


No, they don't evoke "coincidence" they evoke "convergent evolution".

Here is a way to think about convergent evolution: I'm a programmer, and just about any task has an unlimited number of ways to implement a solution, but many programmers will come up with similar or even identical solutions because they solve the problem efficiently. Similarly, if two organisms are presented with similar problems along their development they may end up adapting a solution in similar or identical ways because that is simply the most efficient way to solve the problem.

To put it another way - It isn't coincidence that often 2 hydrogen atoms attach to an oxygen atom to make water, it is simply a result of the physical laws governing the system.


---
Account closed permanently. I won't stand for abuse of authority by forum administration to censor criticism of a conservative radio host that celebrated the death of AIDS patients on his show. Maybe some day we'll speak again elsewhere.
4/22/2018, 5:53 pm Link to this post PM luciddream00 Blog
 
gawell Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


Alive resembles a flowing river, dead a still pond.
Fitness is quickness and frequency of replication, quantity and quality of properties being replicated, and the slowing and correction of replication errors. However closely two are united together each has a unity which is stronger than the bonds which fitted each to the other.
However weak a unity is it remains stronger than the bonds that unite two unities together. The living selects; the dying and dead are selected. Life chooses, the never alive and the ex-living are the chosen.
Free energy means available energy. Free will means available will.


---
You’re cute when you’re angry is not always true.
4/28/2018, 9:39 am Link to this post PM gawell Blog
 
spud100 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


All thing brings to mind-Redq's description of Conscious Agents by Donald Hoffman.
Longer video
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/conscious-agents-a-theory-of-consciousness-donald-hoffman/
and, This PDF is better imohttp://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/HoffmanTime.pdf-
Quanta magazine Interview-Best
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/
4/28/2018, 11:57 am Link to this post PM spud100 Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


How did a topic regarding a reasonable hypothesis like panspermia turn into an excuse to waste space on ill-informed comments about supposed problems with the theory of natural selection? If the quotes Red chose to represent Rhawn Joseph’s position are anything to go by, he is obviously not at all qualified to pass judgment, since his writing displays the same misunderstandings that real experts dismissed years ago.

Forget such ignoramuses (maybe he is very knowledgeable in other areas but in this field? Not remotely). Go read Dawkins, or Neil Shubin or Jerry Coyne. Real experts.

4/30/2018, 12:54 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
ProfessorFalken Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


We can start stop complaining about panspermia as soon as you acknowledge the validity of Darwinian evoloution.
4/30/2018, 1:08 pm Link to this post PM ProfessorFalken Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Can we please stop arguing about panspermia


quote:

How did a topic regarding a reasonable hypothesis like panspermia turn into an excuse to waste space on ill-informed comments about supposed problems with the theory of natural selection?


That was Red's original thesis. It is the whole reason why he posted this thread. I.e. this is not really a thread about panspermia. It is a thread about creationism with panspermia offered as support evidence.
4/30/2018, 3:01 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top