Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

A non sequitur! What does this kind of intentional testing with a purpose behind it have to do with the kind of blindness I defined that is purposeless and non-intentional?

You defined? You mean you did not get it from a dictionary? Or from a link?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You defined? You mean you did not get it from a dictionary? Or from a link?

Actually a little of both. And it had nothing to do with the kind of "blindness" used in tests that you provided us. Again...a non sequitur.

Try to be sharp, Sparky. You might set the world on fire yet.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The key word is "survived". I'm here. The Neanderthals are not.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Super. So here's another one: Dialoguing with you makes me believe Neanderthals are alive and well. And they doubtlessly thought the same thing about their ancestors, as you do about them.

Ad hominem!

What else is new?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What else is new?

From you? Nothing!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Actually a little of both.

Am I not allowed the same?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Am I not allowed the same?

You're "allowed" to do anything you want. Just be prepared to be called out on any foolishness you post.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're "allowed" to do anything you want.

Not if I want to avoid incarceration and/or litigation.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not if I want to avoid incarceration and/or litigation.

Extrapolate much?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Extrapolate much?

Is it illegal?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

More from Dr. Watson's book which deals with the seven minimum biological requirements for life.

Evolutionary biology considers the most primitive cell to be the "Last Universal Common Ancestor" (the LUCA) or the "Last Universal Ancestor" (the LUA). Understand that LUCA is strictly hypothetical; evolutionary biologists have no evidence of any sort that it ever existed. Additionally, although it may not have been the first cell, it claimed as the ancestor of all life we know today. Evolutionary biology acknowledges that LUCA had to have been complex, had a genetic code (implying it could duplicate itself) and had a very involved metabolism. Whether or not LUCA was the first cell is unimportant. The crucial point here is that whatever the first cell was, or whenever it came to be, from the moment it gained "life", it would have to have had every single one of a required set of seven life
processes up and running efficiently. Not only that but LUCA or any cell that came before it would have had to be albe to simultaneously control every one of those processes in an integrated manner fromthe start. It would not have survived otherwise.

So...when the random mass of chemicals somehow came together and somehow formed the first free-living complete cell, from the very first moment that cell would have had to:

Acquire energy: take in energy (for example, heat) or energy-containing chemicals (nutrients) from the environment.

Use energy: release energy from energy-containing nutrients or other sources and use it to sustain every one of its cellular processes.

Regulate its internal environment: regulate and keep every life process balanced and stable even when external environment is constantly changing (the physiological principle of homeostasis).

Transport substances: actively move any stustance that it needs from its environment into itself (e.g. water, salt, nutrients) or out of itself (e.g. waste products) through a complex functioning living cell membrane. Such transport would have be selective to prevent unwanted materials from entering the cell (e.g. too much water or salt) or needed products from leaving the cell (e.g. critical amino acids, fats, proteins and enzymes, nucleic acid precursors)

Synthesize and degrade substances: make the various biochemicals it specifically needs exactly when they are needed and in the amount they are needed (e.g. for its membranes, proteins and enzymes, and the nucleic acids RNA and DNA), then break them down when they are no longer needed.

Excrete wastes: selectively remove wastes and used biochemicals

Reproduce: make new, duplicate copies of itself (i.e. daughter celss) at the proper time and in a controlled (not random) manner consistent with its environment.[b]

As Heller emphasized, these minimum requirements clearly show that even the simplest single cell is an incredibly complex entity because all functions must work in a highly regulated, and interactive manner. Take any one of these away and the cell would instantly cease to exist or would have never formed in the first place. This very complex framework then forms the core of a virtually insurmountable scientific challenge to evolutionary biology -- to demonstrate with direct evidence abiogenesis could occur. (emphases not mine)

Dr. Watson assumes that all life is cellular, i.e, consists of conglomerates of cells or of single cells. He totally disregards molecular biology. The defining attribute of life is reproduction. This is possible with a single molecule, meaning that #7 is the only requirement for life. #1 thru #6 fall by the wayside. A single molecule in a primordial environment would not need them.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Dr. Watson assumes that all life is cellular, i.e, consists of conglomerates of cells or of single cells. He totally disregards molecular biology. The defining attribute of life is reproduction. This is possible with a single molecule, meaning that #7 is the only requirement for life. #1 thru #6 fall by the wayside. A single molecule in a primordial environment would not need them.

It's Dr. Wilson, Sparky. Try to keep up.

The problem with your molecule theory is that molecules are not free-living organisms. Look up the definition on the web.

A molecule is a particle made up of two or more atoms that are chemically bonded together; the number of atomic nuclei making up a molecule is a determinate number.

The above taken from the Chemical Dictionary.

The second problem with your theory is that atoms do not reproduce -- not in the sense you're trying to convey.

Do atoms reproduce?
- Tremont Grade School
Tremont, IL
A:
In the sense that living organisms reproduce, no, atoms do not reproduce.

Some atoms are radioactive and decay into other atoms. Some emit "alpha" particles when they decay. An alpha particle is two protons and two neutrons stuck together. An alpha particle is the same as a helium nucleus. For example, Radon (a naturally ocurring gas, produced in the deacay of Thorium which is found in rocks) decays by emitting an alpha particle to produce a Polonium atom, which decays itself by emitting an alpha particle. Each of these alpha particles makes a helium atom.

But is this "reproduction"? Not at all! The helium atoms do not "grow up" to be like the atoms they came from -- they just stay helium atoms.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1290

The third problem with your theory is that it begs the question hugely! Even if molecules reproduced in the sense you are implying, what good is it if the copies cannot sustain themselves due to the absence of the the other six key complex elements to life? All the copies would be "stillborn"! They would die immediately without the supporting systems!

The fourth problem Wilson pointed out in my 5477 is that your theory also begs the question big time with respect to the even the bigger question -- evolution to a free-living cell. Again, here is what Wilson said:

That evidence cannot be limited to simply demonstrating the natural formation of bits and pieces of a whole cell (e.g. amino acids, protein fragments and other biochemicals because that leaves no plausible explanation for how these biological bits could randomly come
together to form a whole cell. Anything short of that demonstration cannot be used as the direct evidence needed to establish abiogenesis as fact. (emphases author's)

In fact, your reproduction theory for molecules (which isn't really reproduction to begin with) "leaves no plausible explanation for how those" [atoms in the molecules] randomly come together to form a whole cell".

Also, you might try to actually read my 5496 wherein several evolution scientists are quoted and reproduction is discussed in that post.

Have a nice evening, Sparky. When you have something of genuine substance to say, please beam it up to this thread.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The problem with your molecule theory is that molecules are not free-living organisms.

Why "free-living"? Why not just "living"? Some molecules are alive. The problem is simply one of determining how the first such molecule came about.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The second problem with your theory is that atoms do not reproduce ...

Not atoms. Molecules. Try to keep up.

You do know the difference between an atom and a molecule? Don't you? Hmm??

Molecules do reproduce. What is a strand of DNA? It's a molecule. It reproduces. When a cell reproduces the DNA within it reproduces first.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The third problem with your theory is that it begs the question hugely! Even if molecules reproduced in the sense you are implying, what good is it if the copies cannot sustain themselves due to the absence of the the other six key complex elements to life?

A strand of DNA (or RNA or something similar) in an environment of primordial soup would not need the other six.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The fourth problem Wilson pointed out in my 5477 is that your theory also begs the question big time with respect to the even the bigger question -- evolution to a free-living cell. Again, here is what Wilson said:

That evidence cannot be limited to simply demonstrating the natural formation of bits and pieces of a whole cell (e.g. amino acids, protein fragments and other biochemicals because that leaves no plausible explanation for how these biological bits could randomly come together to form a whole cell. Anything short of that demonstration cannot be used as the direct evidence needed to establish abiogenesis as fact. (emphases author's)

In fact, your reproduction theory for molecules (which isn't really reproduction to begin with) "leaves no plausible explanation for how those" [atoms in the molecules] randomly come together to form a whole cell".

The key word is "random". Natural selection is not random. There is no reason to assume that a reproducing molecule (DNA, RNA, something else) could not evolve into higher life forms.

Wilson is a liar. He is not presenting a scientific argument. He is an apologist. He is starting with the conclusion he wants and working backward. His problem is that if he goes all the way back to molecular biology (a legitimate field) his argument falls apartment. So he stops at cellular biology because at that point his lies still hold up.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Actor

Plus the state of Swampland may be under water in your lifetime.

I have just learned that ocean water floods the streets of Miami on a regular basis.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why "free-living"? Why not just "living"? Some molecules are alive. The problem is simply one of determining how the first such molecule came about.

Now, you're catching on. That's the problem! And why "free-living"? Because it lives independently of other organisms rather than in a symbiotic or parasitic relationship. In other words, it can live independently because it possesses the seven minimum requirements for life. It's an organism that just doesn't pop into existence and then immediately pop out. It's organism that can actually sustain itself.

The Quora forum also confirms Wilson's seven minimum requirements for life. Biologists seem to be in agreement that a system is considered living when it possesses all seven critical properties for an organism to come into existence and sustain its existence.

https://www.quora.com/Is-an-atom-living-or-non-living

Molecules do reproduce. What is a strand of DNA? It's a molecule. It reproduces. When a cell reproduces the DNA within it reproduces first.

A strand of DNA (or RNA or something similar) in an environment of primordial soup would not need the other six.

No, it wouldn't survive. And non-living molecules do not reproduce. There is no Mitosis with non-living substances.

And thanks for confirming that molecular biology concerns itself with cell life! Try this definition on for size:

Molecular biology /məˈlɛkjʊlər/ concerns the molecular basis of biological activity between biomolecules in the various systems of a cell, including the interactions between DNA, RNA, and proteins and their biosynthesis, as well as the regulation of these interactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biology

Molecular biology. therefore, presupposes the existence of cell systems.

The key word is "random". Natural selection is not random. There is no reason to assume that a reproducing molecule (DNA, RNA, something else) could not evolve into higher life forms.

You're jumping the gun, Sparky. I didn't mention natural selection. Natural selection is the sum of various processes, the first being random mutations. There would not be any natural selection if it weren't for random mutations, differential reproduction and heredity.

Wilson is a liar. He is not presenting a scientific argument. He is an apologist. He is starting with the conclusion he wants and working backward. His problem is that if he goes all the way back to molecular biology (a legitimate field) his argument falls apartment. So he stops at cellular biology because at that point his lies still hold up.

Actually, he begins with free-living cells!

The cell (from Latin cella, meaning "small room") is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms. A cell is the smallest unit of life that can replicate independently, and cells are often called the "building blocks of life".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

Did you catch that, Mr. Actor? Lot of meat to chew on in that definition! A cell is the the smallest unit of life because only within a cell system can all seven properties be found that is necessary to create and SUSTAIN life. AND it is "THE BASIC unit...of all known living organisms". So...quit your straw men regarding molecules. Wilson has it right. He's not a liar.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I have just learned that ocean water floods the streets of Miami on a regular basis.

Fake news, Mr. Gullible.