Quote :

"no, it really hasn't"

Well then simply state your burden of proof for showing this.

2/4/2011 1:06:26 PM

A few falsifiable experiments demonstrating the generation of self-replicating organic compounds from non-self replicating compounds. It doesn't even have to be DNA.

Even then, proving that it actually happened like that will be impossible. The evidence for exactly how abiogenesis occurred on Earth is probably long gone.

2/4/2011 1:24:32 PM

I mean... isn't NASA right now furiously working on things they hope could lead to finding abiogenesis on other planets? No one is going to argue that they can, in any way, prove it happened in a certain way in a certain place on Earth. But wouldn't it be flatly irrational to observe lower life forms on multiple other planets and maintain abiogenesis as a flaw in the scientific description of our orgins?

Is this sufficiently falsifiable for you? We certainly may not find other planets with life, and if we've scowered the galaxy and come up with squat, then hey, it's to the drawing board.

Granted, this erodes claims that we've definitively got the evidence for the history of the universe as described by science, but this is simply unfinished work of which there are mountains of, and nobody was actually arguing that in the first place. Right now we do have a coherent picture, which is certainly incredible, and I stand by calling it well-argued because there is a strong case for things like abiogenesis. If you limit yourself to what science has proven, we have very impressive knowledge but it doesn't fully get us from the big bang to now - duh.

for example, Kepler has 1235 planetary candidates. Know how many confirmed planets they've caught?

15

That's right, a pitiful number in comparison. Why? Because scientists are skeptics. But looking at the unconfirmed planets, we're still talking about 99% confidence by statistics and while a few will probably be false-positives, any claim that most or any sizable fraction are false is absurd, and time will tell as they are evaluated.

2/4/2011 2:36:48 PM

Quote :

"But wouldn't it be flatly irrational to observe lower life forms on multiple other planets and maintain abiogenesis as a flaw in the scientific description of our orgins?"

As far as I know, life on other planets has not been observed. And no, abiogenesis is not a flaw. It happened. At some point before there was no life on this planet, and after that point, there was life. Now even if you're suggesting that living organisms were brought here, we know that in the Universe as a whole life did not exist at one point and at some point it started existing. So even if it didn't happen here, it had to have happened somewhere.

And even if life spontaneously formed on Earth through natural processes as I believe it did, that wouldn't preclude the same or similar processes occurring on other planets, and in fact given the immensity of the number of planets as you point out it would be expected (but not granted as a given).

Quote :

"Granted, this erodes claims that we've definitively got the evidence for the history of the universe as described by science, but this is simply unfinished work of which there are mountains of, and nobody was actually arguing that in the first place. Right now we do have a coherent picture, which is certainly incredible, and I stand by calling it well-argued because there is a strong case for things like abiogenesis. If you limit yourself to what science has proven, we have very impressive knowledge but it doesn't fully get us from the big bang to now - duh."

You're preaching to the choir here. But the claim is "science has done a pretty good job of explaining how hydrogen atoms can turn into life given enough time" is bogus. Science hasn't proven how to get from non-self replicating molecules to self replicating molecules. It has proven thoroughly how to get from simple self replicating molecules to humans however. And of course this isn't to say that it won't one day prove how it's possible. I fully believe that we will, given our track record of figuring shit out.

[Edited on February 4, 2011 at 3:31 PM. Reason : no]

2/4/2011 3:30:48 PM

Quote :

"However, the implied "and therefore a religious explanation is feasible" is bullshit."

I wasn't trying to imply that at all.

Quote :

"Well then simply state your burden of proof for showing this."

the burden isn't on me to provide the evidence against his claim.

Quote :

"But wouldn't it be flatly irrational to observe lower life forms on multiple other planets and maintain abiogenesis as a flaw in the scientific description of our orgins?"

Existence of life on other planets isn't exactly proof that life can arise unaided from hydrogen.

2/4/2011 5:23:47 PM

Quote :

"frog: For what it's worth, science has argued well-enough for the claim "Hydrogen, given sufficient time, turns into people. burro: no, it really hasn't frog: Well then simply state your burden of proof for showing this. burro: the burden isn't on me to provide the evidence against his claim."

huh?

Whether or not you were ever educated in it doesn't change the fact that science has a coherent explanation for how the universe, governed by a set of known laws, mechanically gets from state A to state B. That being the universe filled almost entirely with Hydrogen (after the stranger parts of the big bang) to the present state.

For the above A and B there is an extraordinarily good case for the mechanisms that physics knows explaining basically all of the transition (not cataloging it, explaining it). You, however, seem to feel that pointing out a part where you find the explanation questionable isn't a burden that skeptics like yourself should not have to oblige.

Refuting my original claim was wrong, but your last response was absurd beyond all reason. So now how the fuck can I tell you about how wrong you were to begin with? I can't because you're crying foul in a way that doesn't make any fucking sense, and you know what? It works, you can gain points in arguments this way. And this is exactly what Fox News does.

Quote :

"Existence of life on other planets isn't exactly proof that life can arise unaided from hydrogen."

Life on Earth was created by a different kind of life

OR

Life on Earth came about from non-life

within this distinction there is the possibility of life coming from outside our own universe (which yes, has a very clear formal definition). So we could have come from 'outsiders', or we could be such outsiders ourselves. Out of these possibilities, abundant low-complexity life in the Milky Way (with a distribution shifted toward lower complexity) could weaken or strengthen any particular argument. My thought is that it seems overly-complicated and arbitrary (like Greek gods) to postulate that fairies from another universe went around our galaxy sprinkling the seeds of life when there is a perfectly plausible abiogenesis explanation. But it sounds an awful lot like you're headed in the Bill O'Reilly direction of:

Life came from fweoihneio werf iwejnfieorgert THIS PROVES GOD MUST EXIST!

2/4/2011 6:11:14 PM

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102030006

Quote :

"FOXLEAKS: Fox Caught Scripting Socialism Attack "Isn't that what they do in socialist countries?" Steve Doocy's question sounded like a spontaneous reaction to what he apparently saw as the threat Barack Obama would pose to freedom of the press. It wasn't. The Fox News host's inflammatory question had, in fact, been scripted the night before in an email sent by a Fox producer. The incident, which occurred on the October 27, 2008, edition of Fox & Friends, came during what appears to have been a network-wide campaign to tie Obama to socialism in the month leading up to the presidential election."

2/4/2011 6:26:01 PM

Quote :

"President Obama misquoted a familiar Bible verse during a faith-based address at the National Prayer Breakfast. "Those who wait on the Lord will soar on wings like eagles, and they will run and not be weary, and they will walk and not faint," the president said during a speech to several thousand people at the breakfast. But the actual passage, from Isaiah 40:31, states: "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/02/03/obama-botches-bible-verse-prayer-breakfast

Jesus Facepalming Christ. Apparently only SECRET MUSLIM MANCHURIAN CANDIDATES quote the NIV.

2/5/2011 10:58:16 AM

Our lawmakers shouldn't be quoting religious texts to begin with...

2/5/2011 12:20:50 PM

Sooo… Obama was raised atheist… interesting...

2/5/2011 1:03:12 PM

yeah... that seems like more of an ellipses than a botched quote.

Quote :

"For the above A and B there is an extraordinarily good case for the mechanisms that physics knows explaining basically all of the transition (not cataloging it, explaining it). You, however, seem to feel that pointing out a part where you find the explanation questionable isn't a burden that skeptics like yourself should not have to oblige."

It's not even that. There is, currently, no explanation for how we got from Hydrogen to living beings. we can explain how we got from simple living beings to complex ones, but we CANNOT explain how we got from inanimate to animate. I'm sorry that you can't understand that difference. Please, show me where we have shown how inanimate became animate.

2/5/2011 9:29:33 PM

Then you're saying the week point of our understanding through science of the process is abiogenesis and that such a fact should have already been obvious to me.

Quote :

"we CANNOT explain how we got from inanimate to animate"

Do you just need education on the idea of abiogenesis and Precambrian life? Because the logical question to follow this is; what part of abiogenesis proposed as an origin to life on Earth do you dispute? We don't have the full picture, but we start with the organic chemistry already present on Earth, then more advanced RNA combinations are eventually self selected due to their copying abilities that allow the structure to persist and proliferate, finally, as bubble structures can naturally form anyway, eventually hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties of lipid-like compounds arrange to make the cell walls. The RNA and cell walls still function in similar ways today. Once you have these RNA and cell wall dynamics, the rest is history. Single cell organism colonies have already been shown to exhibit self-sacrificing behavior for the benefit of the group, and the bottom line is that you are a colony of cells working together for the ultimate ends of proliferating a few sperm in your testicles (as an emergent behavior).

Science has example after example of a system (fueled with an energy source and such) that can go from less complexity to more complexity. Your distinction between inanimate to animate is false, the universe was always animate (the Earth rotates around the sun). Irreducible complexity does not exist in any part of the tree of life on Earth.

2/5/2011 11:07:30 PM

It's not that we can't explain those things, there are competing hypotheses that are being researched.

Not to mention that the absence of a theory as strong as evolution for the origins doesn't mean the god of the Bible did it.

2/6/2011 2:53:51 PM

oh man... #1 soundbite coming out of this o'reilly interview

"obama says his first two years were a disaster"

2/6/2011 4:57:44 PM

Quote :

"Your distinction between inanimate to animate is false, the universe was always animate"

really? did you really say that? This has nothing to do with physical motion, you fool.

Quote :

"We don't have the full picture"

So then, what you are saying, is that we can't explain how we went from Hydrogen to living organisms. Thank you for admitting this.

Quote :

"Science has example after example of a system (fueled with an energy source and such) that can go from less complexity to more complexity."

Life from nothing is more than just going from less complexity to more complexity. You know that.

^^ I've suggested no such thing. I am merely taking exception with the indefensible claim that we know how life arose from non-life

2/6/2011 5:13:21 PM

Quote :

"really? did you really say that? This has nothing to do with physical motion, you fool."

Define your criteria for inanimate versus animate. Obvious? Oh I bet. Dogs move and rocks don't. You know, there were a lot of 'obvious' things about the universe to Aristotle. Although he made important contributions, he missed the bus regarding an evidence based understanding of the universe - what amounts to what we now know as the scientific method. You're approaching the problem with similar colloquial logic, and you're wrong. You're taking something that appears to be a clear distinction to you and assuming it is a universal distinction.

You live in a world where there are plenty of living, animate, things, and many inanimate things. Your perspective is tainted by your location in the universe. One could live in a world surrounded by many things that blur the distinction between the two. A virus, for instance, is not a very tangible thing to you. You know of it. But you lack experiential basis to see how it lies in the middle ground between life and non-life.

2/6/2011 6:13:45 PM

Quote :

"oh man... #1 soundbite coming out of this o'reilly interview "obama says his first two years were a disaster""

I thought the same way. This has potential to be twisted all over the place....

2/6/2011 8:28:32 PM

Quote :

"Define your criteria for inanimate versus animate."

not being alive versus being alive. you know, the actual fucking definition of the terms.

Quote :

"You know of it. But you lack experiential basis to see how it lies in the middle ground between life and non-life."

And you would be accusing me of saying there is only "life" and "non-life". I have put up no such false dilemma

2/6/2011 10:39:17 PM

God damn it, I hate being on the same side as burro on this one.

The only difference between living and non-living matter is self-replicating molecules. That's it. Self-replicating molecules drove the creation of cellular structures to maintain the replication of the self-replicating molecules.

We do not currently know how on Earth we went from every molecule being non self-replicating and then some being self-replicating. There are tons of competing theories but none of them have anywhere near enough evidence to be called much more than conjecture. Nor is it likely that they ever will have the evidence, since it all happened billions of years ago and it's all long gone.

It's not like looking at cosmic background radiation; the Earth simply has gone through massive changes in billions of years that has destroyed or hidden all evidence of abiogenesis. And aaron, I know *you* weren't making the implication, but 99 times out of a 100 when someone is arguing that science doesn't know the answer to something it's so they can feel more justified in their supernatural belief of the answer which is fundamentally illogical.

2/7/2011 9:13:37 AM

Quote :

"And you would be accusing me of saying there is only "life" and "non-life". I have put up no such false dilemma"

If you recognize that there is a spectrum from non-life to life, then how do you not get, or think there is not compelling evidence for, the idea that life on Earth came about from non-life? And then if you do see this, then how do you perceive it to be less likely than the converse, that life did not come about on Earth from non-life?

Quote :

"We do not currently know how on Earth we went from every molecule being non self-replicating and then some being self-replicating. There are tons of competing theories but none of them have anywhere near enough evidence to be called much more than conjecture. Nor is it likely that they ever will have the evidence, since it all happened billions of years ago and it's all long gone."

There is a difference between knowing for damn sure that life came about from non-life on Earth, and knowing the particular chemical processes that were the main players. The different theories do not differ all that much, and the bottom line remains. And again, if we see that lower-form life in strewn through the galaxy, created by a different abiogenesis that we can catalog, then abiogenesis for life on Earth will be approaching scientific fact.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 10:15 AM. Reason : ]

2/7/2011 10:10:49 AM

Quote :

"There is a difference between knowing for damn sure that life came about from non-life on Earth, and knowing the particular chemical processes that were the main players. "

We don't know this for damn sure. We do know for damned sure that at some point in Earth history, there was no life on this planet and then after that point there was life. I and most scientists assume there was a natural explanation for how this transition was made, but there is no proof.

Quote :

"The different theories do not differ all that much, and the bottom line remains."

Actually they do differ wildly. From crystals to mud to RNA world to life being brought by a comet, there are many competing and non-compatible theories. None of them have compelling evidence.

Quote :

" And again, if we see that lower-form life in strewn through the galaxy, created by a different abiogenesis that we can catalog, then abiogenesis for life on Earth will be approaching scientific fact."

But we don't see lower-form life in strewn through the galaxy. You're making a gross assumption that we'll find life elsewhere. It is in fact a possibility that this planet is the only planet that has any life on it.

Don't get me wrong I personally believe that there is life elsewhere in this galaxy and that there is a natural explanation for how life got on Earth. But I admit that neither of these facts are anywhere close to being proven no matter how much you stamp your feet and say science. It undermines the credibility scientific explanation to declare facts before evidence.

2/7/2011 11:27:25 AM

There's a difference between what can fall in the purview of science and what is simply rational. It's not about believing - chemistry itself is the best case for this. Life being brought by a comet is a directly competitive theory to Earth abiogenesis. I've heard the case for such a meteorite coming from Mars in our distant past, and given the tectonic evolution of small vs. large planets, yes there is some rational basis for that. Yes, Earth abiogenesis is confirm-able or falsifiable subject to future evidence, the fact remains that it's the best available theory.

Furthermore, we have good reason to expect massive advancements in our knowledge in this area in the next 100 years. People working on artificial life see abiogenesis as a side-problem that can be tackled. Reductionism should tell us a lot - asking the question "what is the most simple bacteria we can engineer" will give some very useful answers. It is likely that we find there virtually is no lower limit for simplicity other than RNA chemistry itself. At that point the fields of biology and nanotechnology merge.

2/7/2011 11:58:13 AM

Everything is a matter of belief. Even things which are considered fact require evidentiary backup to justify your belief in them.

Quote :

"Yes, Earth abiogenesis is confirm-able or falsifiable subject to future evidence, the fact remains that it's the best available theory."

I agree that it's the best available, but its evidence is sorely lacking. Just because you've declared by fiat that a natural explanation is certain doesn't make it true, however.

Quote :

"Furthermore, we have good reason to expect massive advancements in our knowledge in this area in the next 100 years. People working on artificial life see abiogenesis as a side-problem that can be tackled. Reductionism should tell us a lot - asking the question "what is the most simple bacteria we can engineer" will give some very useful answers. It is likely that we find there virtually is no lower limit for simplicity other than RNA chemistry itself. At that point the fields of biology and nanotechnology merge. "

I'd suggest not making truth statements based on what you're conjecturing will happen in 100 years. We have no yet created artificial life, we have not yet discovered life anywhere else. The correct answer to scientific understanding of abiogenesis is "we don't know yet, but people are working on it."

Because the evidence for it is so weak, being so certain about it undermines the strength of other scientific theorems that DO have extremely strong evidentiary backup and SHOULD be considered facts like Evolution.

2/7/2011 1:08:48 PM

http://www.geekosystem.com/bill-oreilly-cant-explain-that-meme/



YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!

2/10/2011 11:08:46 AM

beautiful.

2/10/2011 11:26:10 AM

LOLOLOLOL

2/10/2011 12:00:05 PM

Ahaha it cracks me up when somebody demands a "falsifiable experiment" to prove abiogenesis when there is literally no alternative explanation that doesn't invoke non-falsifiable supernatural forces.

2/10/2011 4:55:34 PM

lol

2/10/2011 4:56:36 PM

This one's for marko.

2/13/2011 11:53:00 AM

http://www.alternet.org/story/149879/%22we_were_a_stalin-esque_mouthpiece_for_bush%22_--_fox_news_insider?page=entire
interview with a former Fox News employee

truly shocking stuff here (ok not really)

2/13/2011 1:04:41 PM

I'm pretty sure that guy was actually a secret Gypsy saboteur.

2/13/2011 1:07:05 PM

hmmm... former employee... axe to grind? naaaah.

2/13/2011 2:23:12 PM

Wow, I thought you would have gone with "How can we even know that this isn't made up since the guy won't identify himself!".

2/13/2011 2:47:35 PM

I'm just saying, they've got this whole column based on what one guy supposedly said. No memos? No voicemails? nothin? Just one unidentified guy spouting his mouth off? come back when you've got some actual news. It's not like Media Matters has never lied about FoxNews before...

2/13/2011 2:55:52 PM

It's pretty obvious that the dude is lying. I mean, just look at how Fox News actually reports the news. Fair and balanced indeed.

2/13/2011 3:05:22 PM

Fox News is as fair and balanced, as Obama was born in Kenya.

2/13/2011 3:09:10 PM

Joe Wilson's mind = BLOWN

2/13/2011 3:10:44 PM

Quote :

"Fox News is as fair and balanced, as Obama was born in Kenya."

Fox News IS TO as fair and balanced AS Obama IS TO born in Kenya.

2/13/2011 7:00:58 PM

wait, Obama WASN'T born in Kenya?

2/13/2011 7:04:13 PM

oh man... i had given up hope... but it looks like they got the old headline guy back

2/16/2011 2:53:58 PM

Quote :

"Ahaha it cracks me up when somebody demands a "falsifiable experiment" to prove abiogenesis when there is literally no alternative explanation that doesn't invoke non-falsifiable supernatural forces. "

It cracks you up that someone demands evidence before labeling a theory fact? You're an awesome scientist.

2/16/2011 3:11:19 PM

How's this for some propaganda:
Ed and Rachel on MSNBC offered up this gem:

Quote :

"Rachel said okay, the budget was balanced, then GOP governor issued 140 million in new tax cuts (if I remember the numbers right, this was background noise while I wrote a paper), and now there is a 147 million budget short fall that he is using to explain as the reason why they need to cut government salaries and benefits there (as well as bust unions), you do the math. "

Yeah, too bad that's a straight-up lie. Everything I see says the tax-cuts were about 70million and the shortfall is 1.5 BILLION. you stay classy, MSNBC. and you accuse FoxNews of being lying bastards
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110205/APC0101/102050457/Wisconsin-Governor-Scott-Walker-signs-bill-granting-business-tax-cuts

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-17/us/wisconsin.budget_1_budget-plans-state-democrats-legislation/2?_s=PM:US

Quote :

"Walker, who says the state is in a crisis, is asking legislators to pass his Budget Repair Bill to combat a $137 million shortfall through June 30. An upcoming two-year budget for 2011-13 must address a pending $3.6 billion deficit, he said."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/109275069.html

Quote :

"To arrive at the favorable estimate, the Doyle administration's estimate assumed that Walker and lawmakers would make spending cuts that have yet to actually happen - two more years of state employee furloughs, no pay raises, a virtual hiring freeze and belt tightening in state health programs. Without that $1.1 billion in savings, the state's projected shortfall rises to $3.3 billion - a significant increase over previous estimates that put the gap at between $2.7 billion and $3.1 billion."

2/18/2011 2:34:48 PM

She was talking about the current budget which ends in June (the 137 million value). I'm not saying that makes the anaylsis right, but I think that is probably where she got the value.


http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110208/GPG0101/102080527/-3-6B-state-budget-shortfall-Walker-says

Quote :

"Walker was expected to release details any day about how he intends to balance the current budget, which ends June 30 and that he projects to be $137 million short."

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 3:10 PM. Reason : those details that he released is the bill that is causing all the hoopla in the state now]

2/18/2011 3:09:22 PM

too bad the tax cut that was just signed affects more than just up to June. Thus, to say that the 140million is responsible for the 137million shortfall of the PAST YEAR is absurd. AKA, she was lying through her teeth. Even the article you quoted says the projected shortfall is 3.6 BILLION over 2 years. You stay classy, MSNBC

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2011 4:57:41 PM

no, the tax cut was signed into law in January (as soon as he took office) and generated a little over 100 million in shortfall (of what was a projected small surplus). The bill he is currently trying to pass is an emergency budget bill to make sure they are in the green for the end of this fiscal year which ends in June.

2/18/2011 5:14:10 PM

so, again. he only cares about this year? and not next year's looming 1.5billion shortfall? suuuuuuuuuure

2/18/2011 5:22:04 PM

You've used the term "stay classy" at least 20 times over the past week or two, you should stop saying the same stupid thing over and over again. My only guess as to why is that either you've just seen "Anchorman" for the first time, or you've just learned the meaning of the word classy, which wouldn't surprise me given your demeanor, but is unlikely considering the continued use of the word ad nauseum is in itself, not classy. But the most likely scenario is you saw someone else use it, and continued to parrot it relentlessly any chance you've had.

2/18/2011 5:22:55 PM

you stay classy, Kris

2/18/2011 5:28:27 PM

I'm not trying to argue that measures won't have to be taken to get their budget under control. I'm only arguing that Rachel Maddow wasn't "lying through her teeth" like you thought.

2/18/2011 5:45:21 PM

only, she is. the projected shortfall is 3.6billion over two years. it is absolutely disingenuous to suggest that Walker is only worried about this year

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM. Reason : ]

2/18/2011 5:46:27 PM