...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: I already said this yet you keep going on about it. It represents the fact that consciousness itself as in human consciousness is a reflection of processes within the universe. You are part of the universe. Your brain is part of the universe. The atoms in your body and the molecules and cells all are constructs of the same materials and processes that are within the universe. Hence if you are conscious then you represent the innate potential for consciousness in the universe.[/QUOTE]As I already explained several times, all things humans have created have the same connection with the universe as what you're talking about here. But I don't see a table communicating with me. I don't see my smartphone collapse the wave function. I don't see the chemicals in my food become more or less "intelligent" when I add more salt/seasoning/chemical reactions. smh. No man-made chemical object [b]has ever been been observed to fill the gap in consciousness between ordinary objects and humans[/b]. I mean, why even need evolution in the first place if, as you claim, intelligence is already a given through "connection with the universe"? [/qb][/QUOTE]I didn't say that salt seasoning equals intelligence. What I actually said was Ptah, Buddha and other "gods" were symbols or archetypes of human consciousness as an example of the "logos" or "consciousness" arising from within a blue print or pattern in the universe. And I said that folks like Socrates, Plato and many other "mystics" used their brains to understand the mysteries of the mind and the universe because of their "cognitive abilities" they have in their brains. And from this tradition comes most of the systems of knowledge we have today from philosophy, math, pshychology, physics and so forth. I also said that the fact that the brain is a product of evolution and not the result of divine intervention means that NATURE and the UNIVERSE can produce consciousness as an expression of itself or from within itself. And the processes that produced consciousness in humans on earth can happen elsewhere. Which means that nature and the physical universe can express consciousness purely from within itself and without outside divine intervention. You are just confused. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] You're definitely confused and no debate with you is possible. The last time I said no man-made object obtains consciousness through chemistry you started ranting about biochemistry and genes, which testifies to your deep confusion. Making humans seem special by talking about genes doesn't address the fact that [b]no human creation will ever obtain consciousness through chemistry[/b]. Whether you add genes or not. (And BTW, DNA itself is a molecule, so you sound super confused trying to claim I'm "forgetting about DNA" when I say chemistry is not the basis of consciousness). The fact that you think genes, basically codes--are somehow instrumental in getting a man-made object to become conscious even contradicts your other claim that intelligence comes from "connection with the universe". Consciousness has nothing to do with genes, whatsoever. Humans have fewer genes than grapes do. And humans definitely don't stand out genetically compared to less complex life forms. [/qb][/QUOTE]Swenet you are not making sense. I never said that man could make consciousness. Man is a creature with consciousness. You just keep making up strawmen to argue against that I never said. I really believe the problem here is you never had a good course on philosophy in college because EVERYTHING I am talking about is part of such courses. The mysteries of the mind and the philosophical arguments about what conscious is and isn't are not new. I already posted numerous references. The point being that there have been many who have made serious philosophical arguments about this topic from various angles and you aren't even referencing any of them instead of making up things that were not said to argue against. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [IMG]https://universe-review.ca/I11-23-genome2.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://universe-review.ca/I11-24-chromosomes.jpg[/IMG] You are seriously confused and going in circles, constantly missing the point and chasing your own tail like a dog. But go ahead. Misrepresent/ignore what I said in this post with more incoherent non sense. You're denying that mysticism involves extrasensory perception, so there is no telling what other non sense you're capable of. [/qb][/QUOTE]The only one confused here is you. I say the universe creates human consciousness and therefore has an 'innate ability' to produce consciousness through chemical means and YOU claim this means man can produce consciousness from chemistry. LOL! Man is not "the universe" and certainly does not have the capacity to "make consciousness" by simply mixing chemicals in a cup. And on top of that, biology as a branch of chemistry about working with cells, which are the building blocks of any life form. Humans do not fully understand the process of how cells formed in history. They have a general idea and there are many theories and most follow general evolutionary principles, but science has not gotten to the point of being able to mix chemicals in a cup and produce living cells. That is why HUMANS cant produce 'living beings' through chemistry. Stop trying to claim things outside of science. Science does not claim such things and you aren't making any sense, scientifically or philosophically. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] ======== To people reading this. Bottom line, you can't create or evolve consciousness through chemistry and so all mainstream evolutionary mechanisms are incomplete at best. They're starting out with the wrong substances. Physics is more fundamental than chemistry. Any evolutionary theory needs to start with, and be grounded in, physics. [IMG]http://www.notesdevoyage.com/ftp/Image/Creations/Illustrations/16-07-27_Emergence_Pyramid.png[/IMG] [/qb][/QUOTE] [QUOTE] [b]Understanding the origin of cellular life on Earth requires the discovery of plausible pathways for the transition from complex prebiotic chemistry to simple biology, defined as the emergence of chemical assemblies capable of Darwinian evolution.[/b] We have proposed that a simple primitive cell, or protocell, would consist of two key components: a protocell membrane that defines a spatially localized compartment, and an informational polymer that allows for the replication and inheritance of functional information. Recent studies of vesicles composed of fatty-acid membranes have shed considerable light on pathways for protocell growth and division, as well as means by which protocells could take up nutrients from their environment. Additional work with genetic polymers has provided insight into the potential for chemical genome replication and compatibility with membrane encapsulation. The integration of a dynamic fatty-acid compartment with robust, generalized genetic polymer replication would yield a laboratory model of a protocell with the potential for classical Darwinian biological evolution, and may help to evaluate potential pathways for the emergence of life on the early Earth. Here we discuss efforts to devise such an integrated protocell model. [b]The emergence of the first cells on the early Earth was the culmination of a long history of prior chemical and geophysical processes.[/b] Although recognizing the many gaps in our knowledge of prebiotic chemistry and the early planetary setting in which life emerged, we will assume for the purpose of this review that the requisite chemical building blocks were available, in appropriate environmental settings. This assumption allows us to focus on the various spontaneous and catalyzed assembly processes that could have led to the formation of primitive membranes and early genetic polymers, their coassembly into membrane-encapsulated nucleic acids, and the chemical and physical processes that allowed for their replication. We will discuss recent progress toward the construction of laboratory models of a protocell (Fig. 1), evaluate the remaining steps that must be achieved before a complete protocell model can be constructed, and consider the prospects for the observation of spontaneous Darwinian evolution in laboratory protocells. Although such laboratory studies may not reflect the specific pathways that led to the origin of life on Earth, they are proving to be invaluable in uncovering surprising and unanticipated physical processes that help us to reconstruct plausible pathways and scenarios for the origin of life.[/QUOTE] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2926753/ The universe produces life and consciousness. Man can't. [QUOTE] Scientists create new life form in a lab, altering the fundamentals of DNA The work has been able to 'lay the foundation for achieving the central goal of synthetic biology: the creation of new life forms and functions' For as long as life on Earth has existed, all of it has been made up of only four letters. DNA has been written in just those four letters – G, T, C and A – which together create the code that underlies every living thing ever known. That's until now. Scientists have announced that they have created living organisms using an expanded genetic code. That could in turn lead to the creation of entirely new lifeforms, using combinations of DNA that couldn't possible have existed before. Two researchers created a bacterium that not only uses the four natural bases, but also uses a pair of synthetic ones known as X and Y. In doing so, the researchers say that they have been able to "lay the foundation for achieving the central goal of synthetic biology: the creation of new life forms and functions".[/QUOTE] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dna-life-form-new-a-t-c-g-x-y-scripps-research-institute-synthetic-semi-a7544056.html But they started with existing genes and hence it is "semi-synthetic". This is the closest they have come to making "synthetic" life: [QUOTE] Geneticists have established the minimum needed for life. They have designed and created a synthetic cell which can survive and replicate with just 473 genes. Humans and fruit flies have more than 20,000 genes each. The finding is a landmark in biological understanding. It could illuminate the mysterious story of life’s evolution in the primal oceans more than three billion years ago. It could provide the basis for a new generation of made-to-order organisms designed specifically to produce new antibiotics, new fuels and new drugs. And it is the climax of decades of theory and experiment. The new organism, officially known as JCVI Syn3.0 is the smallest, simplest self-replicating cell known. It doubles in its laboratory dish every three hours. And it comes with a discovery that its begetter, Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute of La Jolla, California, described as “very humbling”. The makers still do not know what one third of the genes do. [/QUOTE] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/24/landmark-lab-creates-synthetic-cell-with-minimum-genes-needed-for-life-craig-ventner [QUOTE] Question Hi Chris and other scientists. I listen to your podcast weekly. Love them. Has there been any progress in creating a living organism from basic elements (CHONPS) and some heat? Seems like with so many advances in human biology, science should be able to produce a simple organism in the lab. Bob Archibald Berkeley Ca Answer Hannah - We put this to Professor Lee Cronin from Glasgow University: Lee - This is a really important question because it allow us to define life beyond the current toolbox that is used in biology on planet Earth. But to answer this question, we need to side step the definition of life and instead ask a different question which is, what is the minimal unit of matter on planet Earth that can exhibit and undergo Darwinian evolution in an autonomous fashion? And the result is both obvious and startling. It's a very simple cell - bacterial cell, amoeba and so on. So what we've tried to do in my lab is to engineer all inorganic cells to see if we can put these features together. So by using molybdenum or tungsten oxides, we've been able to make very large clusters containing many hundreds of units. But not only that. We can have different building blocks templating the clusters. So we almost have an analogy to DNA, RNA and proteins in the clusters built in. So the question now is, can we get this system to boot up to replicate and evolve? And for that, you need to watch the space. Hannah - So, our version of life uses DNA and protein building blocks. But you can create a different type of building block by making clusters of basic metallic elements that can form structures similar to membranes and enzymes. But, getting these clusters to replicate, mutate, and evolve by themselves has not yet happened. So, we're not quite there yet. [/QUOTE] https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/can-we-create-living-organism-basic-elements [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3