A study of how life started, not evolution:

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well we have in astronomy 'stellar evolution' but that doesn't mean it has anything to do
with or is part of biological evolutionary theory.

Evolution has become a popular word.

It is still the case that one requires a different theory describing different mechanisms for
dealing with the formation of the first living organism to the mechanisms ...[text shortened]... pick up.)[/i] than evolution by natural selection acting on variation of inherited
traits.

THERE IS NO EVOLUTION - STELLAR OR ANY OTHER KIND. GOD DID IT!
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
completely wrong. evolution theory is not concerned with how life began, it is only concerned with how life changes over time. the theory of evolution doesn't care if life was created through abiogenesis, or if it was created by a god, or by several gods, or by aliens, or it just spontaneously popped into existence or through some completely unfathomed process.

Yes it does! Your mind has been corrupted by the devil.
God did it! HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by googlefudge
And further the theory of evolution can quite happily cope with a single common ancestor or multiple common ancestors.

Although presently the evidence suggests the former and not the latter.

Absolutely, that is why God created male and female.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes it does! Your mind has been corrupted by the devil.
God did it! HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

You are verging on spam now.

Say something new or shut up.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are verging on spam now.

Say something new or shut up.

Years ago, there was a supposed Usenet bot (or simulated bot) called Riley M. Sinder that RJ's latest series of posts in this thread remind me of.

Perhaps the bot has evolved into RJ?

http://dev.null.org/psychoceramics/archives/1997.03/msg00005.html

Partial quote:

> If the Usenet newsgroup you frequent seems a little more active
> lately, you can thank a team of six UofC psychology graduate students
> researching debating behavior on the Internet.
> The students have created an Internet character, given him an
> unpopular cause, and even created a personality for him as they used him
> to spar with real people all over the world.
> "The results have been fascinating," says team member Ehmed Mudjavi.
> "People have gone to a great deal of trouble to respond to our character,
> and have even gotten really angry at him on occasion."
> The team has dubbed its creation "Riley Sinder," and an account was
> opened up under that name with Netcom, an Internet service provider
> (Riley's e-mail address, r--@n--.com, is based on the UofC lacrosse
> team's colors).
> Since the start of the term, the students have been regularly posting
> under Riley's name to more than a dozen political, religious and
> philosophical newsgroups.
> All the posts argue a single point: that creationism should be taught
> in public school science classes.

Originally posted by JS357
Years ago, there was a supposed Usenet bot (or simulated bot) called Riley M. Sinder that RJ's latest series of posts in this thread remind me of.

Perhaps the bot has evolved into RJ?

http://dev.null.org/psychoceramics/archives/1997.03/msg00005.html

Partial quote:

> If the Usenet newsgroup you frequent seems a little more active
> lately, you ...[text shortened]... a single point: that creationism should be taught
> in public school science classes.

a bot would be more intelligent.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
a bot would be more intelligent.

It was. (Or if a group simulation, they were.)

But the measure of evolutionary success might be attention-getting, longevity, things like that.

How many people believe that the process of Leukocyte Extravasation came about gradually by Darwinian random mutation and natural selection on a microscopic level ?

YouTube&feature=related

If Charles Darwin had seen this he would have probably thrown his theory into the fireplace to burn.

Originally posted by jaywill
How many people believe that the process of [b]Leukocyte Extravasation came about gradually by Darwinian random mutation and natural selection on a microscopic level ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GigxU1UXZXo&feature=related

If Charles Darwin had seen this he would have probably thrown his theory into the fireplace to burn.[/b]

I found these also very interesting.
Astonishing Molecular Machines

YouTube&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=7wpTJVWra7I&NR=1

Originally posted by jaywill
How many people believe that the process of [b]Leukocyte Extravasation came about gradually by Darwinian random mutation and natural selection on a microscopic level ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GigxU1UXZXo&feature=related

If Charles Darwin had seen this he would have probably thrown his theory into the fireplace to burn.[/b]

your question is as meaningless as asking "how may people believe this process was created by some intelligent being?"

what people believe and how many there are is irrelevant. what is relevant is what can be demonstrated.

most of what is happening in the leukocyte extravasation is chemistry and physics at work.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
your question is as meaningless as asking "how may people believe this process was created by some intelligent being?"

what people believe and how many there are is irrelevant. what is relevant is what can be demonstrated.

most of what is happening in the leukocyte extravasation is chemistry and physics at work.

Explain the chemistry and Physics at work and why is it working.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
your question is as meaningless as asking "how may people believe this process was created by some intelligent being?"

what people believe and how many there are is irrelevant. what is relevant is what can be demonstrated.

most of what is happening in the leukocyte extravasation is chemistry and physics at work.

your question is as meaningless as asking "how may people believe this process was created by some intelligent being?"

You can ask that question if you wish. Its not meaningless either.

what people believe and how many there are is irrelevant.

Then what you believe is irrelevant ?

what is relevant is what can be demonstrated.

Right. And you cannot demonstrate that kind of engineering happening without intelligence.

That is one factor in me deciding what it is I choose to believe. Things like this do not happen without intelligence.

Of course to you they do, because of circular reasoning. Ie. You saw it happen and there was no intelligence involved.

most of what is happening in the leukocyte extravasation is chemistry and physics at work.

Its engineering.

And I do not discount the intuitive side of our humanity as you seem to. I think that what people intuitively feel in their gut about something, is relevant. It may not be a matter of popular vote. But I am interested to know what people feel in thier intuitive gut about the matter.

Maybe in that sense I am more a humanist than you.

And for you to say that that is irrelevant is wrong and self defeating. Then what your opinion is from your intuitive sense is irrelevant also.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-life-began.html

These guys are giving private money and grants for winning proposals for a scientific study of how life started and it has nothing to do with darwinian evolution.

They should take hints from Mary Shelley's story "Frankenstein" and not make same mistakes that the scientist made !!! They should remember the story of Icarus, too.

But seriously speaking, I wish them luck !

Originally posted by RJHinds
Explain the chemistry and Physics at work and why is it working.

if you want to be able to understand the physics of it, you'll have to return to school, starting at elementary level, around grade 2, and work yourself up to college level.

but i doubt your intellect is capable of understanding since you can't even pick up the very basic concepts of evolution even after those concepts have been explained to you many times.

Originally posted by jaywill

your question is as meaningless as asking "how may people believe this process was created by some intelligent being?"

You can ask that question if you wish. Its not meaningless either.

i wouldn't ask such meaningless questions.

Then what you believe is irrelevant ?

i have no beliefs.

Right. And you cannot demonstrate that kind of engineering happening without intelligence.

you can't demonstrate it happening with intelligence nor can you demonstrate that it is engineering.

That is one factor in me deciding what it is I choose to believe. Things like this do not happen without intelligence.

your belief is irrelevant. prove it happens with intelligence.

Of course to you they do, because of circular reasoning. Ie. You saw it happen and there was no intelligence involved.

you're the one who believes it happened with intelligence. did you see it happen and know intelligence is involved?

Its engineering.

your opinion is irrelevant. prove it. demonstrate how it is engineering.

And I do not discount the intuitive side of our humanity as you seem to. I think that what people intuitively feel in their gut about something, is relevant. It may not be a matter of popular vote. But I am interested to know what people feel in thier intuitive gut about the matter.

what people believe is interesting but not relevant.

Maybe in that sense I am more a humanist than you.

explain what you mean by humanist and how you are more of it than me.

And for you to say that that is irrelevant is wrong and self defeating. Then what your opinion is from your intuitive sense is irrelevant also.

there are lots of opinions. some are more interesting than others. all are irrelevant.