1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou're short concise answers seem to imply that this is pretty intuitive. I get the sense of "Get with it dude. Its all quite elementary."
[b]…That is what is said to be curved - the VACUUM of space.
… (my emphasis)
No -just the 3D space.[/b]
Okay, 3D space is curved then ?
The vacuum of 3D space between masses can be curved ?
You can say a little more than "Yes" if it is not too wearisome. Elaborate a little in layman's terms.
Or is this just too difficult for me to understand ?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNow jaywill's gone all presup it seems churlish to continue, but I'll just point out that something having “cell-like dimensions” is nothing like “cell-like structures" which are not good candidates for the first replicators, hence your original statement was strategically sub optimal for the reasons I have stated. If you want to continue leaving an own goal that's up to you of course.
[b]…Microspheres are often said to be “cell-like”:
By molecular biologists?
..…
Why not? The term “cell-like” isn’t a scientific one but a loose one which simply vaguely means “like a cell” and doesn’t imply anything about it being very complex.
This is a link from who I assume to be molecular biologists or at least biologists:
http ...[text shortened]... e it seems that some people in these forums actually think that organic molecules are “alive” 😛[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord Shark=====================
Now jaywill's gone all presup it seems churlish to continue, but I'll just point out that something having “cell-like dimensions” is nothing like “cell-like structures" which are not good candidates for the first replicators, hence your original statement was strategically sub optimal for the reasons I have stated. If you want to continue leaving an own goal that's up to you of course.
Now jaywill's gone all presup it seems churlish to continue,
=======================
Let the man think or himself.
==========================
but I'll just point out that something having “cell-like dimensions” is nothing like “cell-like structures" which are not good candidates for the first replicators, hence your original statement was strategically sub optimal for the reasons I have stated. If you want to continue leaving an own goal that's up to you of course.
==========================
??? You talking about something I said ? Where ?
Originally posted by jaywill…Then I guess I meant a neutron star.
Then I guess I meant a neutron star.
Or I mean whatever subatomic particles are left in the black hole.
…
Then the answer to your question is “yes” although those spaces would be extremely small!
…Or I mean whatever subatomic particles are left in the black hole.
..…
There are none -any particle that goes in would smash into the singularity and its energy/mass just become apart of it.
Originally posted by jaywill…Okay, 3D space is curved then ?
You're short concise answers seem to imply that this is pretty intuitive. I get the sense of "Get with it dude. Its all quite elementary."
Okay, 3D space is curved then ?
The vacuum of 3D space between masses can be curved ?
You can say a little more than "Yes" if it is not too wearisome. Elaborate a little in layman's terms.
Or is this just too difficult for me to understand ?
..…
Yes -specifically curved in 4-dimentions and more so if it is in within a gravitational field.
…. The vacuum of 3D space between masses can be curved ?
…
Sorry to confuse you -I said that wrong:
when I said “ No -JUST the 3D space” I shouldn’t inserted the “JUST” because what I should have said was something like: “it is better to think of merely the “3D space” rather than the “vacuum in the 3D space” being curved because what is in that 3D space is almost irrelevant (unless it has a very large mass) to that space curvature” but whatever is in that curved 3D space (whether vacuum or mass) is technically “curved” (I think) WITH it although I have a suspicion that this is just a matter of semantics to say that (perhaps even a tautology?).
Note that I am not an expert on this subject for this isn’t my field of expertise.
Originally posted by Lord Shark“cell-like structure" is not a scientific term or even a technical term in any field of study that I am aware of (although simply “ cell structure“ would be 😛 ).
Now jaywill's gone all presup it seems churlish to continue, but I'll just point out that something having “cell-like dimensions” is nothing like “cell-like structures" which are not good candidates for the first replicators, hence your original statement was strategically sub optimal for the reasons I have stated. If you want to continue leaving an own goal that's up to you of course.
Therefore, its meaning attached to it must surely be one that a typical layperson would attach to it.
Therefore I see no reason why most layperson (like myself for example) should attach anything more than the most loose and general meanings to this non-technical term. Why should most layperson insist that “cell-like structures" MUST be something that is so complex that it MUST have a complexity comparable to that of modern living cells? -I am sure most laypeople wouldn’t insist on that so I don’t understand your insistence on that.
Here is an example of a formal definition of a microsphere that describes it has being a “cell-like structure”:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/microsphere
“….or a cell-like structure resembling a proteinoid” (my emphasis)
Obviously the term “cell-like structure” doesn’t imply great complexity there! -and why should it?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI agree that “cell-like structure" is not a scientific term and I have given the reasons why I thought there was a risk that this particular term could be misused by creationists in debates of this sort.
“cell-like structure" is not a scientific term or even a technical term in any field of study that I am aware of (although simply “ cell structure“ would be 😛 ).
Therefore, its meaning attached to it must surely be one that a typical layperson would attach to it.
Therefore I see no reason why most layperson (like myself for example) should attac ...[text shortened]... ously the term “cell-like structure” doesn’t imply great complexity there! -and why should it?
However you would no doubt point out to any creationist who sought to exploit this imprecision, that the modern theory of abiogenesis does not involve anything that we would recognise as being like a living cell as the first step.
As for the definition you have provided, it is anything but formal. If something resembles a proteinoid then it isn't very cell-like is it, no matter how unscientific you want to make the term 'cell'?
In summary, the creationists frequently argue against the straw man scenario where a chemical soup gives rise to something like a cell or a bacterium in one step. A more realistic sequence might be:
chemical soup -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria
On reflection, I'm sure you could deal with such a debate, so I apologise for my nit pick.