Free Republic Browse · Search News/Activism Topics · Post Article

Darwin's warm pond theory tested
BBC News ^ | 13February2006 | Rebecca Morelle

Posted on 02/16/2006 6:00:37 PM PST by jwalsh07

Life on Earth was unlikely to have emerged from volcanic springs or hydrothermal vents, according to a leading US researcher.

Experiments carried out in volcanic pools suggest they do not provide the right conditions to spawn life.

The findings are being discussed at an international two-day meeting to explore the latest thinking on the origin of life on Earth.

It is taking place at the Royal Society in London.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...

TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: evocrevo; science
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 last
To: jwalsh07
There are no variations of 1 in mathematics. 1 is 1. 1.0999 is 1.0999. 1 does not equal 1.099, et al. 1 is defined as a natural number, 1.0999 is not. And while there are no "simple proofs" that 1+1=2, it can be proved and has been. I leave that as an exercise for you.

You are correct, inaccurate example, and sloppy thought. 1+1=2 can be proved absolute by the method of mathematics and such proofs define and perfect mathematical method. I should simply have said mathematics and its method is defined by the thought of man and cannot be proved absolute.

81 posted on 02/16/2006 11:39:10 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)

To: RussP

On a side note, here is a link to some theories about how life formed on earth...I'm not putting my name on any of them or anything, just a little FYI, if you care to peek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#The_Bubble_Theory

82 posted on 02/16/2006 11:42:34 PM PST by Lochlainnach (If there was no death penalty, I'm pretty sure Jesus would still be alive today.)

To: jwalsh07
Somebody should tell these guys that Exobiology is not science.

You will have to tell them. 47 years ago when I started attending college one could be proficient in most of the science and math that was known. A scant 30 years prior to that time all the chemistry known was composed and taught from a single text book. What was superior knowledge then is but general and basic knowledge today. There has been a avalanche of new thought, methods, and specialties. I hardly know what qualifies as science today other than what is required by method and it would appear to be abused. My apology but I would defer.

83 posted on 02/17/2006 12:28:49 AM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)

To: Ichneumon
[Thunderous applause!]

Soon to be added to The List-O-Links.

84 posted on 02/17/2006 3:43:00 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)

To: Ichneumon
It's been added to EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES.
85 posted on 02/17/2006 4:12:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)

To: jwalsh07

The concept that all life evolved from some warm soup.
That crock.

86 posted on 02/17/2006 5:39:50 AM PST by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)

To: G Larry

Oh, I get it. LOL. Sorry for my obtuseness.

87 posted on 02/17/2006 6:13:31 AM PST by jwalsh07

To: jec41

I can understand that.

88 posted on 02/17/2006 6:14:08 AM PST by jwalsh07

To: narby
I get it. Evolution cannot be proven scientifically, so there is no reason to expect any form of "proof" in science.

How's this: "There is life on earth". More scientific "proof".

(scoff again)

89 posted on 02/17/2006 9:13:03 AM PST by manwiththehands (Repeal the 17th Amendment. NOW.)

To: jec41
This is getting absurd. .99 + .99 does not equal 2. I'm a programmer. Science and scientific proof are as real to me as the air. Handle it.
90 posted on 02/17/2006 9:14:29 AM PST by manwiththehands (Repeal the 17th Amendment. NOW.)

To: RussP; Ichneumon

"And please explain to me how the "hypothesis" of the naturalistic origin of the first living cell can be "falsified."

I can't explain that -- I claim no expertise in biology, nor theology.

My post #67 was written in support of Ichneumon's #52; and concerned the philosophy of science. As this debate is often framed as "science" versus "superstition" -- it is important that those purporting to speak for "science" don't misrepresent what science actually is.

I believe that, used properly, the scientific method is a powerful tool for discovery. I also acknowledge that there are many things that science cannot tell us (at least not yet).

91 posted on 02/17/2006 9:51:56 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA

To: manwiththehands; Ichneumon
How's this: "There is life on earth". More scientific "proof". (scoff again)

For a better explanation on scientific semantics, see Ichneumon's post #52.

That you "scoff again" at the precise definitions of words in science says much about how much weight we should give to your comments.

92 posted on 02/17/2006 10:07:05 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)

To: manwiththehands
I'm a programmer. Science and scientific proof are as real to me as the air. Handle it.

Been there, done that for 30+ years. Science has nothing to do with it. Learning obscure rules and following them does.

If you were really a programmer, you'd know that .99 + .99 sometimes does "equal" 2.

Put this little line in your C program and smoke it:

printf("%3.0f\n", .99 + .99);

93 posted on 02/17/2006 10:16:16 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)

To: narby; Ichneumon
"There is life on earth" = scientific "semantics".

"Semantics". The last word from a person who refuses to admit they have no idea what they are talking about.

(sigh)

(How ignorant can people be?)

(SCOFF)

94 posted on 02/17/2006 5:34:24 PM PST by manwiththehands (Repeal the 17th Amendment. NOW.)

To: narby
"Science has nothing to do with it. Learning obscure rules and following them does."

You may think that science has nothing to do with being a programmer, but you speak for yourself. My work is detailed, but it's anything but "obscure". I write code that can measure and process the difference between events that can change in nanoseconds. That's 0.000 000 001 seconds. How "obscure" can that be? I can assure you that in my line of work fudging numbers by dropping a half a dozen decimal places would most surly motivate my boss to put me on the street.

And random assembly of random "organic" molecules into random life into more and more random and complex life is anything but science.

95 posted on 02/17/2006 5:58:38 PM PST by manwiththehands (Repeal the 17th Amendment. NOW.)

To: Ichneumon
"Proof" is an impossible standard in this real world.

Exactly what "real world" are you speaking of? Yours? Mine? President Bush's?

There is no "reality". No law. No science. No cause-and-affect.

Life is pointless, vain and hopeless.

96 posted on 02/17/2006 9:09:42 PM PST by manwiththehands (Repeal the 17th Amendment. NOW.)

To: manwiththehands; Ichneumon
I write code that can measure and process the difference between events that can change in nanoseconds.

Will no details, sounds like you're dealing with post processing of hardware measurements. So what. Nothing different than processing a checking account balance.

That's 0.000 000 001 seconds.

Yeah. I knew that. So what.

I can assure you that in my line of work fudging numbers...

Almost every programmer is in that boat. The first job I had as a cub programmer was to write a stereotype spread sheet, back before SuperCalc existed, to reconcile the final numbers for a fortune 100 company on the NYSE. Yeah, they'd have fired me if I screwed it up, and have put me in jail if I did anything untoward.

As for timing, a recent program I did measures, and actively controls, things with a precision of around 2 microseconds.

That's 0.000 002 seconds.

The only hardware in the loop is a fast interrupt, no PALs or ASICs or custom hardware involved. Just software and an interrupt, and my software in a highly deterministic processor with known execution times for specific machine instructions. Oh yeah, the control time can vary too, so we're not talking about adding NOPs until the scope says the code is right.

The bottom line is science still has nothing to do with it. I merely learned obscure rules and followed them. Science is conceiving of a new substrate substance on a chip. Science is developing a new etching process to make smaller transistors so you can put more on a chip. Science is changing the doping and deposition on a chip to reduce the voltage required so as to reduce power consumption and heat.

What you and I do is technology that we've learned from the genuine scientists that developed it many years ago. We don't do science, and an understanding of what real science is, such as Ichneumon's description above, is not required for our work.

97 posted on 02/19/2006 8:20:48 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)

To: jec41
Where is your simple proof that 1+1=2 or the only varations of 1 that produces 2.

3 > 2
except for unusually large values of 2!

Cheers!

And about 1 and .9999999999999999 ;

You can subtract them by hand with pencil and paper :-)

98 posted on 02/20/2006 6:20:45 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

To: grey_whiskers
And about 1 and .9999999999999999 ; You can subtract them by hand with pencil and paper :-)

I recklessly made the same observation as you earlier in the post. I had forgot my math. 1 is absolute and a number and can be proved absolute. .9999999999999999 is not a number. 1+9999999999999999=1.9999999999999999 I had to go to goggle and review absolute. 1+1=2 is proved absolute. A simple explanation is that a string .999999 inches long is not as long as a string 1 inche long even thought the difference is not observable. It is observable if one string is 1 mile long and another is .999999 miles long.

99 posted on 02/20/2006 6:47:36 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)