Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

I never said life is sure to arise. All I said is that 4 billions years ago, the earth had all the required chemicals (lifeless) and an energy source. And this is sufficient to spontaneously synthesize self-replicating molecular structures. That, my friend, is a cold hard fact.

Well if that's all you are saying, then it doesn't apply to my posts here at all, because my posting has been about Hawking trying to assert that LIFE -- NOT JUST SELF-REPLICATING STRUCTURES, BUT LIFE ITSELF -- was produced from lifelessness in the primeval soup. And again, to "prove" this, he had his guests add live bacteria to the primeval soup.

So I guess the question to you now is, do you buy Hawking's HYPOTHESIS that life arose spontaneously from this very process? Not that I really care, but you are the one who contested my posts, and I can only assume it's because you agree with Hawking and don't like to see someone point out his circular logic.

Obviously, we weren't there to obverse while it happened, but scientists did reproduce the conditions of the primeval soup in the lab and, surprise!, they observed that spontaneous reactions gave amino acids, nucleotides and the like.

Again, these are just building blocks, they are not life. The proof of LIFE appearing spontaneously from primeval soup and input of energy is still non-existent.

Obviously it would be a huge news event if some scientist ever made this happen. It's an open question as to whether such a proof would invalidate religions that profess God to have created life, because an argument could still be made that the creation of life actually began with the Big Bang. Again, that is something Hawking left out of his show.

[Brian Hartman]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

More aptly, Canada's Dumbest Person, then we have a rich pool here.

Brian

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

What Cloutier and Hawking and so many others are saying is that because bacteria can make copies of themselves to reproduce, and because RNA can make copies of itself with no input from a creator, therefore life can evolve from lifelessness. And as Cloutier has done here, they use long time intervals (4 billion years) to assert that over that amount of time, it is bound to happen: life is sure to arise.

I never said life is sure to arise. All I said is that 4 billions years ago, the earth had all the required chemicals (lifeless) and an energy source. And this is sufficient to spontaneously synthesize self-replicating molecular structures. That, my friend, is a cold hard fact.

It's a unproven hypothesis and will remain so until someone can demonstrate a way to do it. Anyone can believe in it if they want to, but no one can assert it as provable fact. Nevertheless, Hawking on his show did just that, and gets away with it because of his reputation. But not everyone is drinking the KoolAid!

Obviously, we weren't there to obverse while it happened, but scientists did reproduce the conditions of the primeval soup in the lab and, surprise!, they observed that spontaneous reactions gave amino acids, nucleotides and the like.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

Wait a minute. Evolution and Big Bang Theory are 2 different things. Evolution is the gradual changing of species over long periods of time by natural selection. Lots of evidence to support this theory by Darwin. Regarded by many (including myself) that the theory has been proven.

Your argument against Hawkins experiment was his faulty proof that life was created in a lifeless environment. That theory along with the Big Bang Theory and Creationist theory are all, IMHO, unproven theory.

Just like the dangers of manmade Climate Change, IMHO, is a proven theory, whereas the theory that it is all an elaborate hoax by thousands of climate scientists, IMHO, is a unproven theory.

Good that you bring up these points, Bob.

I am fully in agreement that evolution is a proven theory. It does happen, no doubt about it, and it makes absolute sense given that genetic mutations do occur in all species.

What does not make sense is the hijacking of evolution theory to assert that no creator is needed to explain the existence of life in the universe because LIFE ITSELF evolved.... as Hawking said in his show, "life from lifeless molecules". And then he used live bacteria to "prove" it!

What Cloutier and Hawking and so many others are saying is that because bacteria can make copies of themselves to reproduce, and because RNA can make copies of itself with no input from a creator, therefore life can evolve from lifelessness. And as Cloutier has done here, they use long time intervals (4 billion years) to assert that over that amount of time, it is bound to happen: life is sure to arise.

It's a unproven hypothesis and will remain so until someone can demonstrate a way to do it. Anyone can believe in it if they want to, but no one can assert it as provable fact. Nevertheless, Hawking on his show did just that, and gets away with it because of his reputation. But not everyone is drinking the KoolAid!

Incidentally, part and parcel of this theory for its believers is that man will eventually, as Cloutier laughingly says, "figure out everything" which means that man will figure out how to live eternally in this physical universe. First of all, aging and disease will be eradicated. And once that is done, as the eons go by, the human body will be further engineered to be immune to all means of death, such as by fire, accident, drowning, etc. Man will become God, in essence. Ray Kurzweil is a leading proponent of this theory, and in fact says it will begin with the arrival of a Singularity somewhere between 2030 and 2050. Kurzweil is spending a fortune trying to keep himself alive until the Singularity (he's around 60 now). This is all the new man-centered religion, maybe there's even a name for it. I'm not sure if Scientology is part of this or not.

Darwin himself made this statement in The Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”

I don't really think it would break down his theory, but it would break down the hijacking of his theory as described above.

I have a possible candidate case: spiders. The thing about spiders is that not only does their body create the raw material for spiderwebs -- something truly amazing in itself -- but they are each BORN with the knowledge of how to use it: how to spin intricate webs, while avoiding getting stuck in the web themselves.

How could both this capability and this knowledge evolve "by numerous, successive, slight modifications"????

Think about the earliest spider species.... maybe it suddenly mutated to be able to form the raw material in it's body. Ok.... that certainly didn't make it more "survivable" than its predecessor, so there is no reason to suppose that this new mutation would survive any more than those without it. But even if it did just by chance, when and how does the point arrive -- what exact mutation occurs -- at which the species suddenly knows how to spin an intricate web and how to catch insects with it? And at the moment that it (supposedly) suddenly does occur with one specific spider... how does that spider pass on its knowledge to its descendants?

Is such knowledge genetically passed on? Why isn't this happening with chess players? Why aren't they passing on the innate knowledge of how to mate with knight and bishop?

Many times I have seen cats watching flying birds, as the earliest non-web-spinning spider ancestors must have watched flying insects. Are cats going to evolve into "spider cats"???? Will the day arrive in so many millions of years when cats can spin super-strong webs to catch birds???

[Hans Jung]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

With all the spirited discussion here I doubt they could decide in any given calendar year on a candidate.

[Kevin Me]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

Is there any interest in organizing a Chesstalk's Smartest Person? I think it would be a popular and well-received event.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

You keep talking about structures forming, structures forming, structures forming.... it doesn't mean anything! Life is about a LOT more than molecular structures forming. And additionally, why would a universe that sprang into existence out of sheer chance turn out to beat quadrillion-to-one odds and form all the chemical elements and electrical charges necessary to eventually (like a machine) produce life? That only makes sense if this universe is but one of an infinite number of universes constantly springing into existence, each different from the other, thus giving at least a sense of mathematical inevitability to it all. But that's just another thing we can hypothesize but never prove.

As I said, 4 billions years is a lot of time.

The fact that you don't understand every little detail that happened during these 4 billion year means absolutely nothing.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

BINGO! The need to wait 4 billion years is EXACTLY why evolution vs. creation debates will NEVER end.

Wait a minute. Evolution and Big Bang Theory are 2 different things. Evolution is the gradual changing of species over long periods of time by natural selection. Lots of evidence to support this theory by Darwin. Regarded by many (including myself) that the theory has been proven.

Your argument against Hawkins experiment was his faulty proof that life was created in a lifeless environment. That theory along with the Big Bang Theory and Creationist theory are all, IMHO, unproven theory.

Just like the dangers of manmade Climate Change, IMHO, is a proven theory, whereas the theory that it is all an elaborate hoax by thousands of climate scientists, IMHO, is a unproven theory.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

It was for a TV show and they couldn't afford to create a primeval soup and wait 4 billions years.

BINGO! The need to wait 4 billion years is EXACTLY why evolution vs. creation debates will NEVER end.

Jesus, you are reading way too much into this. But maybe it's comforting for you to think that you found a flaw in one of Hawkins reasoning.

It's hilarious that you bring up the name of Jesus.

I posted in a thread about finding Canada's smartest person. I don't think, I KNOW, that Hawking, because of his sheer reputation, got to put a 1-hour show on a public television network in which he put forth something as scientific fact which in actually nothing more than theory. I did this for the benefit of anyone who wants to prove themselves Canada's smartest person: don't do what Hawking did.

How exactly is that "reading too much into this"? Should none of us ever dare speak up when we see someone trying to brainwash others with faulty logic? When they try to present theory as fact?

As for the gaps you see in the RNA world hypothesis, well, they're all closing and will keep closing as we learn more. Simple structures such as ribozymes have been shown to be made of RNAs that assembled together. DNA is a relatively simple variation on RNA, making the structure longer and more stable. A lot of the most primitive enzymes have been shown to be made mostly of RNA strands. Lipid vesicules can form spontaneously so that's most probably where the first cellular structures came from. And the list goes on and on and on.

You keep talking about structures forming, structures forming, structures forming.... it doesn't mean anything! Life is about a LOT more than molecular structures forming. And additionally, why would a universe that sprang into existence out of sheer chance turn out to beat quadrillion-to-one odds and form all the chemical elements and electrical charges necessary to eventually (like a machine) produce life? That only makes sense if this universe is but one of an infinite number of universes constantly springing into existence, each different from the other, thus giving at least a sense of mathematical inevitability to it all. But that's just another thing we can hypothesize but never prove.

But now that I've gone and written that because of all your meaningless drivel about RNA, you're probably going to keep trying to push your evolutionist agenda using RNA as some kind of a proving ground. You can fool some of the people some of the time....

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

You still don't get it. I'm not trying to turn this thread into an evolution vs creation debate.

I said, if you would take the time to read, that Hawking tried to prove his own evolutionary beliefs as scientific fact, and he did it by INTRODUCING LIFE into a chemical soup. And I am stating that that is a huge faux pas, a circular argument, and if you want to debate THAT, then stick to the point.

Well, don't worry then. Hawkins knows about all of that.

It was for a TV show and they couldn't afford to create a primeval soup and wait 4 billions years.

Jesus, you are reading way too much into this. But maybe it's comforting for you to think that you found a flaw in one of Hawkins reasoning.

As for the gaps you see in the RNA world hypothesis, well, they're all closing and will keep closing as we learn more. Simple structures such as ribozymes have been shown to be made of RNAs that assembled together. DNA is a relatively simple variation on RNA, making the structure longer and more stable. A lot of the most primitive enzymes have been shown to be made mostly of RNA strands. Lipid vesicules can form spontaneously so that's most probably where the first cellular structures came from. And the list goes on and on and on.

4 billions years is a lot of time. Our lack of knowledge about the whole process doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means we don't have all the details yet.

You can't use ignorance to prove a point, however hard you try.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

But even if he did, it doesn't prove his point about life arising from this process, because no one has yet created LIFE out of pure lifelessness. Hawking had to introduce live bacteria, and the dumbed-down TV audience is supposed to buy that. No one can objectively prove that life will arise out of pure lifelessness, even if given 5 billion years. You can only HYPOTHESIZE it.

Well said Paul. When I read your post earlier, I thought "What???, that doesn't prove anything"
Don't buy it just because some smart guys says its so.
Same with the Big Bang Theory. I'm not buying it. It could be true!
And I'm not buying the creationist theory either.
We just don't know, and probably never will.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

RNA are simple, self-replicating molecules that can assemble spontaneously from more elemental (and non replicating) molecules. No need for a 'creator' there.

Look, if you had an ounce of smarts, you'd argue that your creator did kick off the big bang. Like, he did the cosmoligical finger snap that started the whole thing. No one can argue against that.

But down here on earth? It is totally possible to obtain self-replicating molecules out of very simple elements and pure randomness. You should look it up, it's call the RNA world.

You still don't get it. I'm not trying to turn this thread into an evolution vs creation debate.

I said, if you would take the time to read, that Hawking tried to prove his own evolutionary beliefs as scientific fact, and he did it by INTRODUCING LIFE into a chemical soup. And I am stating that that is a huge faux pas, a circular argument, and if you want to debate THAT, then stick to the point.

I don't give a shit about whether RNA can self-assemble or not. Fire can also self-replicate, but fire doesn't turn into life. And by the way, if Hawking wanted to prove that point about RNA and it's so common, he should have shown a setup in which RNA self-assembles from simpler molecules.

But even if he did, it doesn't prove his point about life arising from this process, because no one has yet created LIFE out of pure lifelessness. Hawking had to introduce live bacteria, and the dumbed-down TV audience is supposed to buy that. No one can objectively prove that life will arise out of pure lifelessness, even if given 5 billion years. You can only HYPOTHESIZE it.

Your opening statement is fine, but you still have to make a giant leap to prove that self-replicating RNA inevitably leads to single-celled life which reproduces, which ultimately leads to multi-celled life in myriad forms as we see today. That giant leap is so far non-demonstratable.

And incldentally, you are talking to me as if I know nothing about RNA / DNA and molecular genetics in general. Assuming that an audience is totally ignorant is another faux pas that many 'smart' people make.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

And to 'prove' his point, he had his guests introduce live bacteria which he stated represented the sudden appearance of molecules that did nothing but endlessly produce copies of themselves. His is a circular argument, a huge faux pas for someone with his reputation. This is something that any 'smartest person' candidate should avoid.

If you want to argue that, then argue it. But if you want to argue evolution as a fact that accounts for all life on Earth, with no creation involved at all, start another thread.

RNA are simple, self-replicating molecules that can assemble spontaneously from more elemental (and non replicating) molecules. No need for a 'creator' there.

Look, if you had an ounce of smarts, you'd argue that your creator did kick off the big bang. Like, he did the cosmoligical finger snap that started the whole thing. No one can argue against that.

But down here on earth? It is totally possible to obtain self-replicating molecules out of very simple elements and pure randomness. You should look it up, it's call the RNA world.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

And eh... sorry guys.

A thread on chesstalk about Canada's smartest person... and here I am arguing with Paul Bonham and his religious views... My bad.

You argue, and then can't even get the argument right. I made it very clear, my point isn't to push any spiritual (much better word than 'religious') views. My point was that Hawking, supposedly extremely smart, presented a view as scientific fact that is actually nothing more than conjecture and theory. And to 'prove' his point, he had his guests introduce live bacteria which he stated represented the sudden appearance of molecules that did nothing but endlessly produce copies of themselves. His is a circular argument, a huge faux pas for someone with his reputation. This is something that any 'smartest person' candidate should avoid.

If you want to argue that, then argue it. But if you want to argue evolution as a fact that accounts for all life on Earth, with no creation involved at all, start another thread.

Maybe in 5 billion years, you could actually start making sense, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Canada's Smartest Person - Seeking nominees.

So here comes a little bit about me and myself ... because this is a subject matter near and dear to my heart. Doesn't quite run to the soul of me but it comes very very close. As a someone who has creativity running thru their viens and has the means to bring ideas to physical form, I have a lot of experience in arena of Evolution vs Creation.

So as part of all of that, over the last 7 years or so I've have been working on my first shorty film called ... Lords of Graphite.

Beneath its theatrical production its core is about free will and about how ideas come to be. Lords of Graphite explores the 'Idea' that we don't have, and never have had, free will! Rather, we are forced on a chemical and biological level to have ideas regardless of our will!

With Lords of Graphite I use the fundamental element that is primal to us all ... Carbon. The elemnet Carbon (and Silicon which is a member of the Carbon family) is what drives us! It is what moves us. It is what provokes to act, to think, and to have an Idea!!!

There's no such thing as free will. It is the fundamental element Carbon which is that 'selfish gene' (borrow from Richard Dawkins) for its own survival, for own creativity, and for its very own evolution, for its own sake!!!

OK?

For the film I created some character props which have been developed as a animation segemnts of my film. Oh BTW, I have to mention the film is shot in stop motion! To see some of the early props I created for the film simply ask the Googe ... Lords of Graphite.

Here's a couple of sites that featured my character props:

https://bizarrebeyondbelief.com/2012...s-of-graphite/
http://www.junk-culture.com/2012/01/...-graphite.html


.