Thunderbird Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 No, Li is for Lithum, there is no element of life nor is there a mysterious life force. Why do you insist on being so non science about something is just a chemical reaction? The only element that seems to be almost certianly nesesarry for life is C carbon but even that is questionable to a small extent. LOL Ya kinda missed the point. I know the Periodic table. And I know life is carbon based. The question is if you had to Assign life a geometric symbol what would it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 LOL Ya kinda missed the point. I know the Periodic table. And I know life is carbon based. The question is if you had to Assign life a geometric symbol what would it be? No, I'm not quite that dense, I just refuse to subscribe to your mysterious, hocus pocus definition of life. so far you sound like a tent revivial preacher trying to scare his flock by insinuating things he can't prove or even justify his slant on. Get real, so far all you have said is bull butter that cannot be backed up by anything. Anyone can twist sly non scientific babble to try and back up something they insist cannot be explained even though it can be explained much more precisely every day. research goes on but you are stuck in the dark ages trying to nail jello to a wall. Used to be pretty good argument to explain how grain and wet could make mice or rotting meat made flys but it still isn't a real explination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 No you are missing the point, life is not some sort of mysterious process that cannot be quantified. No matter how hard you try to wrap it in mystery life is nothing more than a chemical reaction that produce copies of it's self. Probably started out as catalysts that produced more than one copy of the catalyst when the reaction was through. Your missing the point of some of my last few post.. My point was that people get a little nuts around here on the subject of evolution. Your helping my case however. Look What you said here its not rational. " life is not some sort of mysterious process that cannot be quantified" Then you use the word "Probably" you don't know how to quantify this original process because know one really does. "Probably" is not quantification, its conjecture. Do you agree. I have found the more I learn about science the more mysterious the universe becomes.:eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 No, I'm not quite that dense, I just refuse to subscribe to your mysterious, hocus pocus definition of life. so far you sound like a tent revivial preacher trying to scare his flock by insinuating things he can't prove or even justify his slant on. Get real, so far all you have said is bull butter that cannot be backed up by anything. Anyone can twist sly non scientific babble to try and back up something they insist cannot be explained even though it can be explained much more precisely every day. research goes on but you are stuck in the dark ages trying to nail jello to a wall. Used to be pretty good argument to explain how grain and wet could make mice or rotting meat made flys but it still isn't a real explination. Your are being quite dense at the moment. Who and what are you arguing against? I need to thank you however... I went on the following rant earlier : see below....and was accused of pissing and moaning for on good reason. Do you see why I went on my little rant about people getting a little nuts..... exhibit A above post. Do you now see my reasons....Reason.:eek2: From earlier in the thread...ThunderbirdI’m attempting to highlight something about not only the evolutionary process, but also the knee jerk reaction people have when attempting to present an expanded view point on life that is not chemical or strictly biological. People get a little nuts and presumptuous around here on the subject,. If you don’t believe me just look at Buffy’s post WTF over. Why do you say “I’m not comfortable with that notion” Believe it or not, this has to do with your presumption and conditioning that Darwin needs defending. Darwin doesn’t need defending. Science moves forward, it never should be dug in defending. A model as important and central as this one should be a water shed for all the other sciences that pertain to it. Systems Theory, Chaos Theory, Non Linear dynamics, Quantum DNA coherence, Kaufmanns Autocatalytic Loops, Why doesn’t that happen here? Because when these things are brought up people get uncomfortable, They gang together into a mob mentality group think. If you think I am over reacting go back and look in other threads on evolution and see how you guys act on discussing this subject.. Science now has much more to tell us about life’s origins than was learned 150 years ago. Life in all its sophistication deserves more respect than, “its just all chance” nothing more to see here folks move along before we all get hijacked by the creationist. Its pretty amazing really anytime someone talks about advancing Darwinian Models into the 21 century by utilizing models that do not focus on the materiel components, but rather the dynamical system aspect people get uncomfortable. Why is this I wonder? Do you guys just like the idea of life is part or partials first and foremost, rather than unsubstantiated cycles, pulses, waves, basins of attraction, or autocatalytic loops, are these of no importance? These descriptions or better… so my toys are better, but know body wants to play, they only want to big a trench, or call a name or allude to a creationist that was never There. Reason :You know, I can't become more comfortable with a new perspective when the person offering it would rather piss and moan than explain it. I would rather spend my time on the science, But sadly the knee jerks..well I said it and now I have proven it.:hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Your missing the point of some of my last few post.. My point was that people get a little nuts around here on the subject of evolution. Your helping my case however. Look What you said here its not rational. " life is not some sort of mysterious process that cannot be quantified" Then you use the word "Probably" you don't know how to quantify this original process because know one really does. "Probably" is not quantification, its conjecture. Do you agree. I have found the more I learn about science the more mysterious the universe becomes.:eek2: No, I said probably because there are different schools of thought on the process and some even think it took more than one of these processes to make life. The catalysts are just the furthest back anyone has been willing to speculate with the data at hand. There were almost certainly more steps along the way before anything we would recognize as life or a cell came into being. Just because we don't know the entire process in detail doesn't mean there is a mysterious hocus pocus to it any more than a person who is land bound has to believe there is something mysterious about hurricanes. Until we had space observation the process of hurricane formation was somewhat of a hypothesis but now we know the entire process in detail. No need to call up an image of King Neptune throwing the ocean at you in all it's glorious fury! The more science I know the less mysterious things become, not more, you seem to be one of those people who need for things to be mysterious. Especially things you don't understand, evidently for you science is one of those things. I on the other hand am sure science will on day be able to completely quantify the process of the formation of life as clearly as we know how a hurricane forms. would you have to think that a volcanic erution is the god vulcan kicking up his heals? No one really knows absolutely how volcanoes work, we have pretty good evidense to explain the process but no way to actually view a volcanic eruption from the inside to be sure but I am sure there is no mysterious hocus pocus involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Speaking as a Hypography Moderator (gosh, how mysterious is THAT???) I cordially suggest that everyone take three deep breaths, hold them until you see little sparkly lights, and let them out ever so slowly. Visualize a flower garden with butterflies. Now both of you, get down on all fours if you have to, but... FIND THOSE MISSING POINTS!! I want them all back in their case before I return. Okie dokie?? :eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Speaking as a Hypography Moderator (gosh, how mysterious is THAT???) I cordially suggest that everyone take three deep breaths, hold them until you see little sparkly lights, and let them out ever so slowly. Visualize a flower garden with butterflies. Now both of you, get down on all fours if you have to, but... FIND THOSE MISSING POINTS!! I want them all back in their case before I return. Okie dokie?? ;) :hihi::eek2: Okie dokie;) Moontanman;The more science I know the less mysterious things become, not more, you seem to be one of those people who need for things to be mysterious. Especially things you don't understand, evidently for you science is one of those things. Albert Einstein: The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious - the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Living Philosophies, 1931 I think I am in good company.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 :hihi::eek2: Okie dokie;) I think I am in good company.... There is a differnce between mysterious and nonsense. your slant is full of the latter. Science is filled with mystery if you define mystery as lack of truth. But it wouldn't be science if that mystery was more important than the truth at hand. I'm sure Einstien wanted the truth more than he wanted the mystery. for him the mystery lead him to follow the truth not make up nonsense to explain the mystery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 For the people I have PM for help with the paper I posted ealier Laboratory cultures of calcifying biomicrospheres generate ooids - A contribution to the origin of oolites http://http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2004_L03/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 (Recent Hypo-returnee Biochemist argues this additive effect is a leap of faith, but lets not get side-tracked here, there are plenty of old threads to scrounge through for that discussion...)There are few things more heart warming (or personally threatening) than having someone with the presence and brains of the Buffmeister actually remember what I wrote several years ago. Reminds that I am really going to have to watch what I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Richard Dawkins "we are more like a wave than than a permanent thing" "a whirlpool is a thing as much as a rock" Richard Dawkins' jaw-dropping talk on our bizarre universe (TEDTalks) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344&q=science&total=178344&start=50&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 It is difficult to deduce how the individual eukaryote could build these structures within the 10-15 million years of the initial spark of the Cambrian explosion. They did not carry within themselves a blue print for an overall body plan prior to their appearance. The time frame does not allow for a slow linear advance of trial and error.....The missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function acting on a microbial community bound within a geometric substrate of oolitic spheres ... Hmmm, T-Bird. This is a reasonably complex hypothesis, but then, so are the rest of them. I have to admit that a lot of my thinking about complex biochemical processes is shaped by their incredible unlikelihood of occurring at all. I think I understand your point about oolitic spheres (I sure love that phrase- I expect to use it at my next dinner party), but I am suspect that any mass particulate or mass of life forms can organize into the immense complexity of a condensed genome, even of a proto-genome was already present. Further, my view is that the first part of your hypothesis is conjecture as well. You are suggesting that the few phyla (three as I recall) that predate the Cambrian explosion could not have carried the "blueprint for an overall body plan." I suggest that we have not confirmed that. I suggest that the best interpretation of the data we have now is that the body plans that were expressed in the Cambrian explosion were in blueprint form in the earlier phyla. That is, if there was not time for "mutation" unless we impute an inordinate number of influences to make incredibly unlikely "mutations" much more likely, let's just bite the bullet and accept that the "code" for the daughter species was already present in some form in the parent species. But I sure like the notion of oolitic spheres. Do they taste good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Science is filled with mystery if you define mystery as lack of truth. Sure, but this is an instance where I think I am more in T-Bird's camp. The more I understand, the more I realize the magnitude of the unknown, and the magnificent complexity of the stuff we do understand. It is a little like Federal spending. The more money we send to Washington, the more they spend. In the case of basic sciences, the more we know, the greater the unknown appears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahmabeliever Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Time out :hihi: I theorise that life is made up of water and carbon, not carbon alone. Why? Dry something out see how long it lives. Some life forms may lie dormant without water, but not proliferate. Or I'm wrong.... :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Time out :hihi: I theorise that life is made up of water and carbon, not carbon alone. Why? Dry something out see how long it lives. Some life forms may lie dormant without water, but not proliferate. Or I'm wrong.... :hihi: Well if you are talking about life as we know it then you are completely correct but then again there are several elements and chemicals that have to be present for life as we know it to remain alive. Phospherous is one, so is nitrogen, too many more to list really. but if you are talking about "Life" then the possibilities are quite a bit less limited. boron in place of carbon, ammonia in place of water or maybe just liquid methane in place of water. Lots of possibilities but no real data to back them up as of yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 Hmmm, T-Bird. This is a reasonably complex hypothesis, but then, so are the rest of them. I have to admit that a lot of my thinking about complex biochemical processes is shaped by their incredible unlikelihood of occurring at all. I think I understand your point about oolitic spheres (I sure love that phrase- I expect to use it at my next dinner party), but I am suspect that any mass particulate or mass of life forms can organize into the immense complexity of a condensed genome, even of a proto-genome was already present. Further, my view is that the first part of your hypothesis is conjecture as well. You are suggesting that the few phyla (three as I recall) that predate the Cambrian explosion could not have carried the "blueprint for an overall body plan." I suggest that we have not confirmed that. I suggest that the best interpretation of the data we have now is that the body plans that were expressed in the Cambrian explosion were in blueprint form in the earlier phyla. That is, if there was not time for "mutation" unless we impute an inordinate number of influences to make incredibly unlikely "mutations" much more likely, let's just bite the bullet and accept that the "code" for the daughter species was already present in some form in the parent species. But I sure like the notion of oolitic spheres. Do they taste good? You guys are aware that evidence for complex life does go back further than the Cambrian explosion? Eukaryotic cells didn't just suddenly become multi cellular creatures! they were precede by at least a half to one billion years of what we call protozoan, single celled but much more complex than simple eukaryotic cells. Even evidence of worms and then there are the fossils called the ediacara and even before them tiny shells that have no real identification because they are all tiny and broken up from what is assumed to be larger animals. the burgus shale was just an ideal fossil condition that occurred at one place and point in time. we really don't know how far back soft bodied animals go but there is evidence for them at least twice as far back as the burgus shale and the Cambrian explosion. It is very possible that ocean conditions didn't allow hard body parts to be formed easily until what we call the Cambrian explosion occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 Hmmm, T-Bird. This is a reasonably complex hypothesis, but then, so are the rest of them. I have to admit that a lot of my thinking about complex biochemical processes is shaped by their incredible unlikelihood of occurring at all. I think I understand your point about oolitic spheres (I sure love that phrase- I expect to use it at my next dinner party), but I am suspect that any mass particulate or mass of life forms can organize into the immense complexity of a condensed genome, even of a proto-genome was already present. Further, my view is that the first part of your hypothesis is conjecture as well. You are suggesting that the few phyla (three as I recall) that predate the Cambrian explosion could not have carried the "blueprint for an overall body plan." I suggest that we have not confirmed that. I suggest that the best interpretation of the data we have now is that the body plans that were expressed in the Cambrian explosion were in blueprint form in the earlier phyla. That is, if there was not time for "mutation" unless we impute an inordinate number of influences to make incredibly unlikely "mutations" much more likely, let's just bite the bullet and accept that the "code" for the daughter species was already present in some form in the parent species. But I sure like the notion of oolitic spheres. Do they taste good? I think the code was present in the autonomous cell or cells living in the microbial community, prior to the multi-cellular animals. Basically the cells could have gained the genetic complexity over a period billions of years to act as a stem cell. The oolites are produced within the microbial community and utilized as cohesive scaffoldings to build complex geometric structures, that would conform to fluid dynamics. Image magnitic ball Bearings suspended in mercury being acted upon and conforming to fluid dynamics. The oolites would dissapate however leaving behind a stucture shaped by these dynimics. This mineral in these pearl like spheres is the same substance the first shelled animals arrived with.... do you see where I might be going with this scenario. The mineral also regulates is used to regulate the autopoietic systems in salt water aquariums. Its called Live Rock.If correct it would explain many questions not yet answered on the origin of the phyla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.