So basically, save their ego * i * via immaturity.
When and where did ego originate? Why?
Was it a defense mechanism? Offense?
Evolution towards a creature that seeks truth?
Evolution toward a creature seeks lies?
Resultant of a mutation?
Abiogenesis
Posts
Total:
334
-->
@disgusted
Their frightened?
I'm frightened too, of them!
-->
@mustardness
The reason some others do not address my givens as stated, is that they have no rational, logical common sense that invalidates my givens, as stated.They believe there is less damage to their ego if they run, hide irrational, illogical lack of common sense ridicule.So basically, save their ego * i * via immaturity.Go figure.
I think maybe, just maybe that the problem is most people have an inadequate understanding of the teachings of Buckminster Fuller.
-->
@Paul
I think maybe, just maybe that the problem is most people have an inadequate understanding of the teachings of Buckminster Fuller.
Perfect example of ego hiding and/or creating diversions to protect itself from loosing face * I *
* I * is face of ego.
* i * is ego that has lost face.
So ego is still there, only now it is shrunk enough to allow in rational, logical common sense considerations and the ability to seek truth.
There exists no lab experience proof of abiogenesis. This is known fact and irrelevant to Bucky Fuller.
Ergo we are left to speculate on how RNA-DNA came about.
Why a spiral pattern? /////////////// ex a slinky toy.
--see my numerical pattern that is geodesic spiral and defines a resultant sine-wave spiral within the geodesics----
-- this requires the ego taking a back seat to allow in more cosmically comprehensive considerations----
Why are complex humans and other less complex animals bilateral?
.... see left-skew and right-skew set of 5-fold 31 primary great circles/tori of the 5-fold icosa{20}hedron------
----left O | O right with flatten version of the 4-fold cubo-octahedron in between ergo liken to corpus callosum--
Why homo chirality of left-handed amino acids? They are found in meteorites if not also other celestial phenomena.
The 4-fold cubo-octahedron contracts in two opposite directions that is what leads to left and right-skew sets of icosa{20}hedral great planes of existence.
5-fold icosa{20}hedron contains 4-fold cubo-octahedron.
4-fold cubo-octahedron contains and transforms into potential 5-fold icosa{20}hedron
The 4-fold cubo-octahedron transforms into a Euclidean, double-sine wave pattern /\/\/ or as^v^v ---see EMradiation { photon }----
Whats inside black hole is expressed on its event horizon.
The area of a spherical cubo-octahedron internal 4 hexagons are equal to the outer surface area of the spherical cubo-octahedron.
Thank You Archimedes. I first read about in Synergetics 1 and 2.
If you want understand higher dimensions then you need look no further than the 4-fold cubo-octahedron that transforms into a seeming single 2D set of 4 double set of triangles ---seemingly flatten ni above link--- or as single 2D set of 8 triangles.
Higher-dimensionality is just combinations of 2,3, 4 and 5-fold. All hyper-dimensionality exists within ultra-micro occupied space.
21 days later
No thanks. That would be like taking a debate with a guy saying the Earth is flat. But if you do get a taker, I'll watch. Good luck.
-->
@ethang5
That would stand, your one and only debate was with a guy who thinks the earth is flat and he demolished you.
I see you've taken over from bully following me around with your bitterness chocking you. Impressive. Your life must be so full and fulfilling.
-->
@ethang5
You're on my thread so its you who is following me around.
So, the one debate you actually had, what happened? Couldn't even form an opening argument? How sad is that.
Brain is asymmetrical. 4-fold cubo-octahedron is asymmetrical Euclidean expression of operating system of Universe, according to Fuller.
8 triangles > | < 6 squares
8 triangles > | < 12 right-angle triangles ergo asymmetrical icosa{20}hedron.
Protein shell of some or many viruses is icosahedral based.
Bacteria ergo all cells have a lipid membrane, instead of the shell.
Why are complex humans and other less complex animals bilateral?
.... see left-skew and right-skew set of 5-fold 31 primary great circles/tori of the 5-fold icosa{20}hedron------
----left O | O right with flatten version of the 4-fold cubo-octahedron in between ergo liken to corpus callosum--
Why homo chirality of left-handed amino acids? They are found in meteorites if not also other celestial phenomena.
The 4-fold cubo-octahedron contracts in two opposite directions that is what leads to left and right-skew sets of icosa{20}hedral great planes of existence.
Ergo we are left to speculate on how RNA-DNA came about.
Why a spiral pattern? /////////////// ex a slinky toy.
--see my numerical pattern that is geodesic spiral and defines a resultant sine-wave spiral within the geodesics----
....1.......................5......7....................11.........13.......................17..........19........peak of outer positive curvature
-
-
0................................6.............................12......................................18.....internal sine-wave peak/trough
...............3.............................9......................................15..........................internal sine-wave trough/peak
-
-
..........2.........4...................8.......10..........................14.......16.........................20......peak of inner negative curvature
These four lines define the four abstract great circles associated with slinky-like torus that has inversions-outversions at peak of positive and negative curvature. The lines of relationship are the spiral geodesics of a something, that is on a trajectory to define this complex, numerical based torus.
So the cubo-octahedron is defined by four hexagons. We can see a repeating hexagonal pattern in the above numerical based torus.
0, 1, 5, 6, 4,2 = spiral hexagon with nuclear 7th as #3
3, 5, 7, 9, 8, 4 = spiral hexagon with nuclear 7th as #6
6, 7, 11, 12, 10, 8 = spiral hexagon with nuclear 7th as #9
9, 11, 13, 15, 14, 10 = spiral hexagon with nuclear 7th as #12
So we get four overlapping spiral hexagons --or whatever we call this double-use scenario--- using 15 numbers, including zero { 0 }.
If we use independant considerations of hexagons, theny #7 and #8 would not be included in the 2nd hexagonal run.
So this double-use method is similar to the following link where we can have 5 cubo-octahedra via only 10 great circles called Emergence of 4-fold from 5-fold. I think it is better titled 5-fold contains 4-fold, even tho a cubo-octahedron contracts to pass through a icosahedral phase.
Here is 4-fold cubo-octahedron contracting to express 5-fold phase of regular icosahedron.
Abiogenesis is the principle that life came from lifelessness. It isn't science nor is aiogenesis non-science; there are abiogenetic hypotheses that stick within the a materialistic paradigm (examples are the 'clay theory', the 'rna theory', the 'deep sea vent' theory and so on and there are theories that do not limit themsleves to materialism - notably creationism, intelligent design and numerous creation myths.
Saying the rna theory (eg) is 'scientific' and the creationism (eg)is non-scientific is not quite right - more correct terms are 'materialist' and 'non-materialist'.
-->
@Goldtop
No Sir. I did not address you. I responded to an invitation by another to a debate. You, in your rancor and bitterness, addressed me.You're on my thread so its you who is following me around
And even then, you're off topic, babbling about who knows what, lost in bitterness. What happened to your life? Where is it?
-->
@keithprosser
I can live with those definitions.
But it remains true that abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever in its favor. So the question stands. Why is it considered?
-->
@ethang5
Post #2 of this thread would show you to be a liar. And as usual, the rest of your post is just more spitting venom.No Sir. I did not address you.
-->
@ethang5
Your question is based on denials of science, ignorance and religious bias, so it's only a question that exists in your empty head.So the question stands. Why is it considered?
-->
@ethang5
I am not clear what evidence of abiogenesis it is reasonable to expect.
But it is true that the gulf between the most complex non-living natural structures and the simplest living thing isenormous. Creating the first living thing is the 'jumbo jet out of a junkyard' problem. That problem disappears once evolution and natural selection can occur, but evoultion and natural selection can't occur until there is a minimum level life-like replication going on... it's a classic chicken and egg situation.
We might have to wait a long time for the answer to that puzzle - i doubt the budget for such research is 1/10000 of that of the LHC!
-->
@Goldtop
Post #2 of this thread would show you to be a liar.
It shows you to be an idiot. So you were addressing my post #2 in post #164? Prompt aren't you. My post was in response to someone challenging me to a debate. Your irrational bitterness caused you to be silly in public again.
And as usual, the rest of your post is just more spitting venom.
Because I didn't bring up some stupid thing you did a year ago? Lol, yeah, your posts are civil.
-->
@keithprosser
I am not clear what evidence of abiogenesis it is reasonable to expect.
As I don't expect any, I'm not sure either.
But it is true that the gulf between the most complex non-living natural structures and the simplest living thing is enormous.
You have a gift for understatement.
Creating the first living thing is the 'jumbo jet out of a junkyard' problem.
Some "men of science" here are already selling tickets aboard that jumbo jet.
That problem disappears once evolution and natural selection can occur, but evoultion and natural selection can't occur until there is a minimum level life-like replication going on... it's a classic chicken and egg situation.
None of this is true, but since you have the most lucid and honest take on abiogenesis, I'll let it pass for now.
We might have to wait a long time for the answer to that puzzle - i doubt the budget for such research is 1/10000 of that of the LHC!
In the maintime, pretend that the answer is abiogenesis, and call it science.
-->
@ethang5
But it remains true that abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever in its favor. So the question stands. Why is it considered?
It is considered to be the most likely of three possibilities.
1. Life has always been present on Earth. (This must necessarily include during the formation of the Solar System from a gaseous cloud).
2. Life came to Earth from elsewhere.
3. Life on Earth came from lifelessness.
Your argument is that 3 is implausible because lifelessness has never been observed to produce life. But by that reasoning, 1 and 2 are equally implausible. Live has never been observed in gaseous clouds in space, nor anywhere else besides Earth.
It is considered to be the most likely of three possibilities.
Untrue. It is not even a possibility.
1. Life has always been present on Earth. (This must necessarily include during the formation of the Solar System from a gaseous cloud).
I have not argued that life has always been present on Earth, only that it must have come from prior life. That is what the science indicates.
2. Life came to Earth from elsewhere.
So? Don't get ahead of yourself. Wherever life came from, science tells us that it came from prior life.
3. Life on Earth came from lifelessness.Your argument is that 3 is implausible....
Untrue. Science says #3 is impossible. You cannot win by substituting your lame argument for mine.
....because lifelessness has never been observed to produce life.
Right. And what's worse, no one has the foggiest idea of a mechanism that would produce life.
But by that reasoning, 1 and 2 are equally implausible.
Ah, that is why you want to replace my argument with your implausibility clunker. Implausibility has nothing to do with it.
Live has never been observed in gaseous clouds in space, nor anywhere else besides Earth.
The universe is a dynamic place. Planets exist today where only gas clouds existed before. There is a clear mechanism for how life could survive an inter-planatery trip.
But that is immaterial now. The point is abiogenesis. It has no evidence at all. None. Possibilities must have some evidence, even if scant. Theories are not considered because someone likes them.
Abiogenesis is nonsense. It is anti-science. It has no evidence.
-->
@ethang5
That problem disappears once evolution and natural selection can occur, but evoultion and natural selection can't occur until there is a minimum level life-like replication going on... it's a classic chicken and egg situation.None of this is true, but since you have the most lucid and honest take on abiogenesis, I'll let it pass for now.
What I won't let pass is your assertion that I post falsehoods - if you had a better reputation on this board that would be a serious matter!
Abiogenesis is nonsense. It is anti-science. It has no evidence.
As always you are big on assertions, light on supporting argument! The scientific method is to guess something, then do experiments to see if the guess is correct. The guess is then abandoned or refined according the results of the experiments. 'Rinse and repeat'. I don't know what you think science is.
Here is Richard Feynman saying it:
Abiogenesis is the guess (the posh word is hypothesis) that there is a mechanistic, materialistic pathway from non-living matter to life. The scientific community is currently in the phase of doing experiments to see if that is true. It's early days and there isn't really very much effort going but groups such as Flint in at the University of Southern Denmark have made more in roads into elucidating possible pathways from non-life to life than Ethang and co. would be comfortable with!
I believe in abiogenesis for the simple reason that non-abiogenesis means some sort of god-like supernatural entity gets dragged in - and the gods do not exist.
-->
@keithprosser
What I won't let pass is your assertion that I post falsehoods
Well, you do. But that is not what I meant this time. You are just incorrect, not lying. But maybe if your conscience is tingling....
- if you had a better reputation on this board that would be a serious matter!
As I know everything for you, including reality, boils down to human consensus, I can dismiss this as your rediculous claim that truth is what people think.
Abiogenesis is nonsense. It is anti-science. It has no evidence.
As always you are big on assertions, light on supporting argument!
Those "light arguments" have left you stumped and conceding. I can live with that.
The scientific method is to guess something, then do experiments to see if the guess is correct. The guess is then abandoned or refined according the results of the experiments. 'Rinse and repeat'. I don't know what you think science is.
It isn't abiogenesis. How long should it take to abandon a bogus guess? The "guess" of abiogenesis has been wrong since science began. Science points to life from life.
Abiogenesis is the guess (the posh word is hypothesis) that there is a mechanistic, materialistic pathway from non-living matter to life.
Why this guess when there is no evidence for it whatsoever?
The scientific community is currently in the phase of doing experiments to see if that is true.
Pick a theory with no evidence at all, and do experiments to see if it is true? All the experiments fail but stick to the theory? Is that what you think science is?
It's early days and there isn't really very much effort going....
Lol. This is why they call you slick.
...but groups such as Flint in at the University of Southern Denmark have made more in roads into elucidating possible pathways from non-life to life than Ethang and co. would be comfortable with!
In roads
Possible pathways
elucidating
Evo doublespeak. How I love it.
I believe in abiogenesis for the simple reason that non-abiogenesis means some sort of god-like supernatural entity gets dragged in - and the gods do not exist.
Thank you for admitting the blatant stupidity of abiogenesis. You believe a no evidence theory because you do not like a possible alternative. A theist has more logical reason for belief in God than you do for believing abiogenesis.
You have no scientific reason to consider abiogenesis. You just think you're running from God.
No Keith. That isn't science, that's voodoo.
-->
@MagicAintReal
Grugore is unwise to accept the debate on this rigged definition.
abiogenesis - the concept that organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances on earth.
The error of abiogenesis is not the physical matter it says comprises life, no theory opposes that, but that abiogenesis says that life sprung up spontaneously from inanimate material. Your bogus definition bypassed that.
But I'll watch. Thanks.
-->
@ethang5
No spontaneous generation is an antiquated association with abiogenesis.
That's not at all what the explanation says, in fact, you should save your criticisms of "bogus" for when you actually look at the evidence provided.
-->
@Stronn
2. Life came to Earth from elsewhere.3. Life on Earth came from lifelessness.
We have scientific evidence for more complex molecules coming from less complex molecules via high pressures associated { indirectly } with meteor impacts on early Earth.
Black holes { highest known pressures } may contain inside ergo on event horizon, coding for RNA-DNA of humans. From there we can have the less frustrating pathway of complex-to-simple evolution.
Brain is asymmetrical. 4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron is asymmetrical Euclidean expression of Operating System of Universe{ OSU }, according to Fuller.
Brain = .....* | *....and we know mens brains are more one-hemi-sphere dominant and more bilaterally active
8 triangles > | < 6 squares
8 triangles > | < 12 right-angle triangles ergo asymmetrical icosa{20}hedron.
Protein shell of some or many viruses is icosa{20}hedral based.
Bacteria and all cells have a lipid membrane, instead of the shell.
Why are complex humans and other less complex animals bilateral?
.... see left-skew and right-skew set of 5-fold, 31 primary great circles/tori of the 5-fold icosa{20}hedron------
----left O | O right with flatten version of the 4-fold cubo-octahedron in between ergo liken to corpus callosum--
Why homo chirality of left-handed amino acids? They are found in meteorites if not also other celestial phenomena.
The 4-fold cubo-octahedron contracts in two opposite directions that is what leads to left and right-skew sets of icosa{20}hedral great planes of existence.
Ergo we are left to speculate on how RNA-DNA came about.
Why a spiral pattern? /////////////// ex a slinky toy. See my geo-numerical torus is slinky toy with inversions from outer and inner peaks of curvature.
--see my numerical pattern that is geodesic spiral and defines a resultant sine-wave spiral within the geodesics----
....1.......................5......7....................11.........13.......................17..........19........peak of outer positive curvature
-
-
0................................6.............................12......................................18.....internal sine-wave peak/trough
...............3.............................9......................................15..........................internal sine-wave trough/peak
-
-
..........2.........4...................8.......10..........................14.......16.........................20......peak of inner negative curvature
These four lines define the four abstract great circles associated with slinky-like torus that has inversions-outversions at peak of positive and negative curvature. The lines of relationship are the spiral geodesics of a something, that is on a trajectory to define this complex, numerical based torus.
So the cubo-octahedron is defined by four hexagons. We can see a repeating hexagonal pattern in the above numerical based torus.
0, 1, 5, 6, 4,2 = spiral hexagon with nuclear 7th as #3
3, 5, 7, 9, 8, 4 = spiral hexagon with nuclear 7th as #6
6, 7, 11, 12, 10, 8 = spiral hexagon with nuclear 7th as #9
9, 11, 13, 15, 14, 10 = spiral hexagon with nuclear 7th as #12
So we get four overlapping spiral hexagons --or whatever we call this double-use scenario--- using 15 numbers, including zero { 0 }.
If we use independant considerations of hexagons, theny #7 and #8 would not be included in the 2nd hexagonal run.
So this double-use method is similar to the following link where we can have 5 cubo-octahedra via only 10 great circles called Emergence of 4-fold from 5-fold. I think it is better titled 5-fold contains 4-fold, even tho a cubo-octahedron contracts to pass through a icosahedral phase.
Here is 4-fold cubo-octahedron contracting to express 5-fold phase of regular icosahedron.
-->
@ethang5
Do you believe there is any alternative to creationism?We don't pick and choose science. Real science goes where the truth is. Believing something because you assume there is no alternative is voodoo, not science.
In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of abiogenesis. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.
In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of creationism. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.
Every single experiment trying to simulate early Earth conditions, or set up conditions for creationism, to see if life can be observed, has failed miserably. All of them.
Creationism is a bankrupt idea. No science backs it up. None.
-->
@ethang5
Your argument that ambiogenesis has never been observed and is therefore impossible is such a textbook example of an argument from ignorance that it is used as an example of that logical fallacy on this webpage.
"Example #2:
To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.
Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious."
When your argument is used as an example of a logical fallacy, you may want to reconsider your argument.
-->
@3RU7AL
We don't pick and choose science. Real science goes where the truth is. Believing something because you assume there is no alternative is voodoo, not science.
Do you believe there is any alternative to creationism?
Huh? When have I mentioned creationism? Please, we are talking science here. Go to the religion board if you wish to discuss religion.
In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of abiogenesis. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.
In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of creationism. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.
Exactly. Thank you for supporting my point. But really, religion belongs on the religion board. Why are you harping on creationism? Are you confused?
Every single experiment trying to simulate early Earth conditions, or set up conditions for creationism,.....
I know of no experiment trying to simulate ....... conditions for creationism... I can't tell now if you're just confused or lying. Either way, no one has mentioned creationism. Stay on topic.
Creationism is a bankrupt idea. No science backs it up. None.
Then it's just like abiogenesis. Must be why you're stupidly posting it here. When you have any logical arguments in support of abiogenesis, come back to the science board.