There will always be research opportunities in every branch of science but scientists have good ideas about virtually everything including how life got a foothold on Earth four billion years ago, and how something can come from nothing.
My point is the magic god fairy of the gaps has run out of hiding places. The fairy never had anything to do therefore it's not real.
Showing posts with label Abiogenesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abiogenesis. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2020
Monday, December 21, 2020
I answered a question about reality.
"Atheists, what are your beliefs on human existence? This comes from a place of genuine curiosity. I am trying to collect information on what atheists believe to be the source of the universe and human existence. Evolution is a big one, but I am curious if there are other schools of thought that I'm missing."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
You need to throw out the word "beliefs". If something is a belief then it's wrong and it should be thrown out. I don't "believe" anything.
Science can explain everything including evolution, abiogenesis, and how something can come from nothing. It's science. Anyone can look it up. Magic god fairies are not required.
One more thing: Anyone who thinks a god fairy is real, or might be real, is insane and not too bright. This is equal to the Easter Bunny fantasy.
Some people never grow up. They want to live in their childish "Everything is magic fantasy world." There is no cure. The brain damage can't be fixed.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
You need to throw out the word "beliefs". If something is a belief then it's wrong and it should be thrown out. I don't "believe" anything.
Science can explain everything including evolution, abiogenesis, and how something can come from nothing. It's science. Anyone can look it up. Magic god fairies are not required.
One more thing: Anyone who thinks a god fairy is real, or might be real, is insane and not too bright. This is equal to the Easter Bunny fantasy.
Some people never grow up. They want to live in their childish "Everything is magic fantasy world." There is no cure. The brain damage can't be fixed.
Sunday, December 13, 2020
Friday, October 23, 2020
"This is NASA’s first asteroid sample-return mission. Bennu was chosen because its carbon-rich material is believed to hold the preserved building blocks of our solar system. Getting pieces from this cosmic time capsule could help scientists better understand how the planets formed billions of years ago and how life originated on Earth."
AP NEWS
RELATED TOPICS
Technology
Science
U.S. News
AP Top News
Asteroids
Asteroid samples escaping from jammed NASA spacecraft
By MARCIA DUNN
October 23, 2020
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — A NASA spacecraft is stuffed with so much asteroid rubble from this week’s grab that it’s jammed open and precious particles are drifting away in space, scientists said Friday.
Scientists announced the news three days after the spacecraft named Osiris-Rex briefly touched asteroid Bennu, NASA’s first attempt at such a mission.
The mission’s lead scientist, Dante Lauretta of the University of Arizona, said Tuesday’s operation 200 million miles away collected far more material than expected for return to Earth — in the hundreds of grams. The sample container on the end of the robot arm penetrated so deeply into the asteroid and with such force, however, that rocks got sucked in and became wedged around the rim of the lid.
Scientists estimate the sampler pressed as much as 19 inches (48 centimeters) into the rough, crumbly, black terrain.
“We’re almost a victim of our own success here,” Lauretta said at a hastily arranged news conference.
Lauretta said there is nothing flight controllers can do to clear the obstructions and prevent more bits of Bennu from escaping, other than to get the samples into their return capsule as soon as possible.
So, the flight team was scrambling to put the sample container into the capsule as early as Tuesday — much sooner than originally planned — for the long trip home.
“Time is of the essence,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, chief of NASA’s science missions.
This is NASA’s first asteroid sample-return mission. Bennu was chosen because its carbon-rich material is believed to hold the preserved building blocks of our solar system. Getting pieces from this cosmic time capsule could help scientists better understand how the planets formed billions of years ago and how life originated on Earth.
Scientists were stunned — and then dismayed — on Thursday when they saw the pictures coming from Osiris-Rex following its wildly successful touch-and-go at Bennu two days earlier.
A cloud of asteroid particles could be seen swirling around the spacecraft as it backed away from Bennu. The situation appeared to stabilize, according to Lauretta, once the robot arm was locked into place. But it was impossible to know exactly how much had already been lost.
The requirement for the $800 million-plus mission was to bring back a minimum 2 ounces (60 grams).
Regardless of what’s on board, Osiris-Rex will still leave the vicinity of the asteroid in March — that’s the earliest possible departure given the relative locations of Earth and Bennu. The samples won’t make it back until 2023, seven years after the spacecraft rocketed away from Cape Canaveral.
Osiris-Rex will keep drifting away from Bennu and will not orbit it again, as it waits for its scheduled departure.
Because of the sudden turn of events, scientists won’t know how much the sample capsule holds until it’s back on Earth. They initially planned to spin the spacecraft to measure the contents, but that maneuver was canceled since it could spill even more debris.
“I think we’re going to have to wait until we get home to know precisely how much we have,” Lauretta told reporters. “As you can imagine, that’s hard. ... But the good news is we see a lot of material.”
Japan, meanwhile, is awaiting its second batch of samples taken from a different asteroid, due back in December.
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
RELATED TOPICS
Technology
Science
U.S. News
AP Top News
Asteroids
Asteroid samples escaping from jammed NASA spacecraft
By MARCIA DUNN
October 23, 2020
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — A NASA spacecraft is stuffed with so much asteroid rubble from this week’s grab that it’s jammed open and precious particles are drifting away in space, scientists said Friday.
Scientists announced the news three days after the spacecraft named Osiris-Rex briefly touched asteroid Bennu, NASA’s first attempt at such a mission.
The mission’s lead scientist, Dante Lauretta of the University of Arizona, said Tuesday’s operation 200 million miles away collected far more material than expected for return to Earth — in the hundreds of grams. The sample container on the end of the robot arm penetrated so deeply into the asteroid and with such force, however, that rocks got sucked in and became wedged around the rim of the lid.
Scientists estimate the sampler pressed as much as 19 inches (48 centimeters) into the rough, crumbly, black terrain.
“We’re almost a victim of our own success here,” Lauretta said at a hastily arranged news conference.
Lauretta said there is nothing flight controllers can do to clear the obstructions and prevent more bits of Bennu from escaping, other than to get the samples into their return capsule as soon as possible.
So, the flight team was scrambling to put the sample container into the capsule as early as Tuesday — much sooner than originally planned — for the long trip home.
“Time is of the essence,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, chief of NASA’s science missions.
This is NASA’s first asteroid sample-return mission. Bennu was chosen because its carbon-rich material is believed to hold the preserved building blocks of our solar system. Getting pieces from this cosmic time capsule could help scientists better understand how the planets formed billions of years ago and how life originated on Earth.
Scientists were stunned — and then dismayed — on Thursday when they saw the pictures coming from Osiris-Rex following its wildly successful touch-and-go at Bennu two days earlier.
A cloud of asteroid particles could be seen swirling around the spacecraft as it backed away from Bennu. The situation appeared to stabilize, according to Lauretta, once the robot arm was locked into place. But it was impossible to know exactly how much had already been lost.
The requirement for the $800 million-plus mission was to bring back a minimum 2 ounces (60 grams).
Regardless of what’s on board, Osiris-Rex will still leave the vicinity of the asteroid in March — that’s the earliest possible departure given the relative locations of Earth and Bennu. The samples won’t make it back until 2023, seven years after the spacecraft rocketed away from Cape Canaveral.
Osiris-Rex will keep drifting away from Bennu and will not orbit it again, as it waits for its scheduled departure.
Because of the sudden turn of events, scientists won’t know how much the sample capsule holds until it’s back on Earth. They initially planned to spin the spacecraft to measure the contents, but that maneuver was canceled since it could spill even more debris.
“I think we’re going to have to wait until we get home to know precisely how much we have,” Lauretta told reporters. “As you can imagine, that’s hard. ... But the good news is we see a lot of material.”
Japan, meanwhile, is awaiting its second batch of samples taken from a different asteroid, due back in December.
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Saturday, September 5, 2020
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
YouTube - Smithsonian Channel
YouTube - Smithsonian Channel
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This Molecule Could Explain the Origin of Life
We're All Made of Stardust. Here's How.
Smithsonian - Brain Gene Tops the List for Making Humans, Human
In a study involving marmosets, a primate genetically similar to humans, researchers have come closer to understanding brain evolution.
By Courtney Sexton
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
JUNE 18, 2020
Why do humans have such large brains? This evolutionary mystery has challenged scientists for ages, but some researchers are using genetics, specifically those genes that can only be found in Homo sapiens, for an answer.
ARHGAP11B, a gene found only in humans, is known for its role in expanding neocortex, the part of the brain responsible for higher cognitive functions such as language and planning. In experiments detailed in a new study published today in the journal Science, researchers inserted the gene into the fetuses of marmosets, who, like humans, are primates, but don’t carry the gene. The team found that after 101 days, the neocortices of the monkeys’ developing brains were larger and had more folds in the tissue than normal monkey fetuses without the gene.
Having more folds in this part of the brain is important because those folds increase the surface area available for brain cells, or neurons, without making the brain too big for the skull. Demonstrating that the human gene fulfills a similar purpose in the brain of another primate provides new insight into how humans may have evolved and may point the way to future treatments for brain disease.
The ARHGAP11B gene appeared about 5 million years ago, not long after the evolutionary split between chimpanzee and human ancestors. It emerged via mutation when another gene, ARHGAP11A, was copied, or duplicated. However, the 5-million-year-old version of ARHGAP11B, known as the “ancestral B” version, isn’t the one that humans have today. Scientists think another mutation of ARHGAP11B occurred in human ancestors between 1.5 million and 500,000 years ago, creating the human-specific gene the researchers used in their latest study.
“That human-specific sequence is absolutely essential for the ability of the gene to amplify the relevant brain stem cells in development,” says Wieland Huttner of the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology, one of the study’s authors.
Previous studies showed similar effects in mice and ferrets modified to have the “new B” version of the gene. However, using those animal models meant the gene was not necessarily expressed in the same way it is in humans. Study author Michael Heide, also of the Max Planck Institute, says the team wanted to study a model organism closely related to humans, and the two most practical options were the marmoset and the macaque.
“We thought that the marmoset would be the better model because the macaque neocortex has many features that it shares with our big and folded neocortex. However, the marmoset is smooth and very small in size.” Thus, any changes to the size and shape of the marmoset neocortex would be easy to see.
To introduce the gene into monkey embryos, the researchers used a “lentivirus,” a virus carrier that cannot replicate. The lentivirus contained ARHGAP11B as well as a protein marker that would allow the researchers to see where that gene was expressed. They included a promoter gene, or a DNA sequence that regulates expression of specific genes.
Debra Silver, an investigator at the Duke University Institute for Brain Sciences, says the researchers’ methods in this study, improved from those used with mice and ferrets, lend a lot of weight to the significance of the results. “One of the challenges [for this kind of study] is you can have abnormally high levels [of expression]. It's like taking a Mack truck to drive something versus something subtler like a Toyota. The idea is, with this they're trying to get closer to what would be normally expressed in the human brain.”
In addition, Silver says, the study demonstrated that a predominant effect of the gene, in addition to increasing the size and number of folds in the neocortex, is controlling the production of certain neurons that develop later and are more important for higher-order processing.
Megan Dennis, who studies the genetics of the human brain at the University of California, Davis, MIND Institute but was not involved in the study, said this research achieved a major step by proving the effect of the gene in a primate.
“We have a whole list of genes that we think might be important in what makes us uniquely human, but very rarely have we definitively shown that they actually are contributors,” Dennis says. “And I have to say that a study like this really brings ARHGAP11B up to the top of the list as a gene that could very well be important in human brain development.”
What’s to come
Because ARHGAP11B falls into a region of the human genome that is known to be associated with intellectual disability, schizophrenia and epilepsy, learning more about how it functions could also be important for understanding disease. For example, human brains that become too large (macrocephalized) can suffer a suite of neurological and behavioral disorders, including autism.
Understanding uniquely human genes such as ARHGAP11B also could aid in the development of new kinds of therapies. This study’s authors suggest this gene has the potential to be useful in growing stem cells that could help treat diseases like Parkinson’s, where clear mutations have been identified.
But the idea of using the gene or others like it to alter the essential structure and function of the human brain raises a host of ethical concerns around both animal testing models and genetic engineering.
“You have to be very careful,” Huttner says. “If you do genetic manipulation in humans, you can only do it if it is to cure a disease where you have an abnormal mutation and you bring it back to the identified normal sequence. Only then. But to try to ‘improve’ humans, no way.”
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This Molecule Could Explain the Origin of Life
We're All Made of Stardust. Here's How.
Smithsonian - Brain Gene Tops the List for Making Humans, Human
In a study involving marmosets, a primate genetically similar to humans, researchers have come closer to understanding brain evolution.
By Courtney Sexton
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
JUNE 18, 2020
Why do humans have such large brains? This evolutionary mystery has challenged scientists for ages, but some researchers are using genetics, specifically those genes that can only be found in Homo sapiens, for an answer.
ARHGAP11B, a gene found only in humans, is known for its role in expanding neocortex, the part of the brain responsible for higher cognitive functions such as language and planning. In experiments detailed in a new study published today in the journal Science, researchers inserted the gene into the fetuses of marmosets, who, like humans, are primates, but don’t carry the gene. The team found that after 101 days, the neocortices of the monkeys’ developing brains were larger and had more folds in the tissue than normal monkey fetuses without the gene.
Having more folds in this part of the brain is important because those folds increase the surface area available for brain cells, or neurons, without making the brain too big for the skull. Demonstrating that the human gene fulfills a similar purpose in the brain of another primate provides new insight into how humans may have evolved and may point the way to future treatments for brain disease.
The ARHGAP11B gene appeared about 5 million years ago, not long after the evolutionary split between chimpanzee and human ancestors. It emerged via mutation when another gene, ARHGAP11A, was copied, or duplicated. However, the 5-million-year-old version of ARHGAP11B, known as the “ancestral B” version, isn’t the one that humans have today. Scientists think another mutation of ARHGAP11B occurred in human ancestors between 1.5 million and 500,000 years ago, creating the human-specific gene the researchers used in their latest study.
“That human-specific sequence is absolutely essential for the ability of the gene to amplify the relevant brain stem cells in development,” says Wieland Huttner of the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology, one of the study’s authors.
Previous studies showed similar effects in mice and ferrets modified to have the “new B” version of the gene. However, using those animal models meant the gene was not necessarily expressed in the same way it is in humans. Study author Michael Heide, also of the Max Planck Institute, says the team wanted to study a model organism closely related to humans, and the two most practical options were the marmoset and the macaque.
“We thought that the marmoset would be the better model because the macaque neocortex has many features that it shares with our big and folded neocortex. However, the marmoset is smooth and very small in size.” Thus, any changes to the size and shape of the marmoset neocortex would be easy to see.
To introduce the gene into monkey embryos, the researchers used a “lentivirus,” a virus carrier that cannot replicate. The lentivirus contained ARHGAP11B as well as a protein marker that would allow the researchers to see where that gene was expressed. They included a promoter gene, or a DNA sequence that regulates expression of specific genes.
Debra Silver, an investigator at the Duke University Institute for Brain Sciences, says the researchers’ methods in this study, improved from those used with mice and ferrets, lend a lot of weight to the significance of the results. “One of the challenges [for this kind of study] is you can have abnormally high levels [of expression]. It's like taking a Mack truck to drive something versus something subtler like a Toyota. The idea is, with this they're trying to get closer to what would be normally expressed in the human brain.”
In addition, Silver says, the study demonstrated that a predominant effect of the gene, in addition to increasing the size and number of folds in the neocortex, is controlling the production of certain neurons that develop later and are more important for higher-order processing.
Megan Dennis, who studies the genetics of the human brain at the University of California, Davis, MIND Institute but was not involved in the study, said this research achieved a major step by proving the effect of the gene in a primate.
“We have a whole list of genes that we think might be important in what makes us uniquely human, but very rarely have we definitively shown that they actually are contributors,” Dennis says. “And I have to say that a study like this really brings ARHGAP11B up to the top of the list as a gene that could very well be important in human brain development.”
What’s to come
Because ARHGAP11B falls into a region of the human genome that is known to be associated with intellectual disability, schizophrenia and epilepsy, learning more about how it functions could also be important for understanding disease. For example, human brains that become too large (macrocephalized) can suffer a suite of neurological and behavioral disorders, including autism.
Understanding uniquely human genes such as ARHGAP11B also could aid in the development of new kinds of therapies. This study’s authors suggest this gene has the potential to be useful in growing stem cells that could help treat diseases like Parkinson’s, where clear mutations have been identified.
But the idea of using the gene or others like it to alter the essential structure and function of the human brain raises a host of ethical concerns around both animal testing models and genetic engineering.
“You have to be very careful,” Huttner says. “If you do genetic manipulation in humans, you can only do it if it is to cure a disease where you have an abnormal mutation and you bring it back to the identified normal sequence. Only then. But to try to ‘improve’ humans, no way.”
Friday, March 13, 2020
A quote from Charles Darwin about abiogenesis. It's obvious he didn't think the Magic Man was ever required for anything.
Darwin Correspondence Project
It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
IV. "Ode to Joy" (excerpt) from Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125
This YouTube video has my favorite music and there is some interesting science.
"It's been 55 years since the Miller-Urey Experiment, and science has made enormous progress on solving the origin of life. This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start. Don't be fooled by creationist arguments as even a minimal understanding of biology and chemistry is enough to realize they have no clue what they are talking about."
Monday, February 10, 2020
I never met a Christian who wasn't a fucking moron.
Christian fucktard: "The probability that life came around by chance is very slight."
The 1st simple living cells got a foothold on Earth about 4 billion years ago and chance had nothing to do with it. The Earth had everything required for life, as it does today.
If you're looking for a hiding place for your magic god fairy of the gaps, you can't hide it on Earth.
Google "Wikipedia abiogenesis" and educate yourself, or would you rather read your moronic bible?
The 1st simple living cells got a foothold on Earth about 4 billion years ago and chance had nothing to do with it. The Earth had everything required for life, as it does today.
If you're looking for a hiding place for your magic god fairy of the gaps, you can't hide it on Earth.
Google "Wikipedia abiogenesis" and educate yourself, or would you rather read your moronic bible?
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Christian fucktards, especially here in Idiot America, are constantly looking for a hiding place for their magic god fairy of the gaps. For example they like to invoke their fairy's magical powers to explain how the 1st simple living cells developed 4 billion years ago. Unfortunately for the morons, scientists are certain magic was not required.
Wikipedia has 30 pages about Abiogenesis, and it says nothing about the childish "god-did-it" fantasy.
Wikipedia - Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.
Wikipedia - Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.
Thursday, August 1, 2019
We can make Earth a heaven or a hell. It's time to make a decision about it.
People share an ancestor with chimpanzees. Everyone who isn't an uneducated moron knows this. It's the strongest fact of science. There are thousands of smoking gun evidences for it, and this blog explains some of it at my 374 posts about the evidence for evolution at evidence for evolution.
After life got a foothold on Earth about 4 billion years ago evolution by natural selection was how the world worked and still works today. All life shares a common ancestor.
We also know it was a completely natural process. A god fairy's magic wand was never required.
I can't imagine anything more complex than the development of millions of new species but we know that's what happened. Therefore, it's ridiculous to pretend a god fairy was ever necessary for anything else, including abiogenesis and what happened before the Big Bang. The fairy never had anything to do therefore it doesn't exist. This is not rocket science. Any unbrainwashed child could figure it out.
So why do billions of human apes still believe their fairy is real?
There are many reasons including inferior science education, intense brainwashing of gullible children, zero curiosity, and of course extreme stupidity.
Most people are retards. Who cares?
The problem is these know-nothing fucktards think they are completely separate from the rest of nature, so they have no problem with destroying nature when it's lucrative to do that. And that might explain the out of control human-caused global warming problem.
We could wipe out all life on Earth and the universe would not care. We are on our own. We fix our problems or we let everything go to hell. I'm betting on the hell thing. I hope I'm wrong.
After life got a foothold on Earth about 4 billion years ago evolution by natural selection was how the world worked and still works today. All life shares a common ancestor.
We also know it was a completely natural process. A god fairy's magic wand was never required.
I can't imagine anything more complex than the development of millions of new species but we know that's what happened. Therefore, it's ridiculous to pretend a god fairy was ever necessary for anything else, including abiogenesis and what happened before the Big Bang. The fairy never had anything to do therefore it doesn't exist. This is not rocket science. Any unbrainwashed child could figure it out.
So why do billions of human apes still believe their fairy is real?
There are many reasons including inferior science education, intense brainwashing of gullible children, zero curiosity, and of course extreme stupidity.
Most people are retards. Who cares?
The problem is these know-nothing fucktards think they are completely separate from the rest of nature, so they have no problem with destroying nature when it's lucrative to do that. And that might explain the out of control human-caused global warming problem.
We could wipe out all life on Earth and the universe would not care. We are on our own. We fix our problems or we let everything go to hell. I'm betting on the hell thing. I hope I'm wrong.
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Here in Idiot America, the most idiotic country on the planet, we have something called the Wall Street Journal. Most of the people who read this newspaper are anti-science anti-reality religious fucktards. This is what I wrote for the morons, and also what someone else wrote.
Wall Street Journal - Is American Religious Liberty in Peril?
What I wrote:
Is American religious liberty in peril?
That's an interesting question but here in the 21st century, it shouldn't be a subject. Religions should have been extinct by now. We know too much about science to pretend a supernatural god was ever necessary for anything.
It would be so nice if people learned how to grow up and face facts. There is no god watching over us. There is nothing to worship. There is no magical 2nd life in a magical paradise. This is reality. Reality is not an opinion.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What someone else wrote:
Some times my right to be free from religion is infringed. Belief in some supernatural being or force is, by definition, literally nonsensical; therefore, it follows that it has no place in our system of justice and law. Those who suffer from the mass delusion that is religious belief should be free to believe as they choose and to practice their religion to the extent that practice is consistent with the law and does not impinge on the convenience, privacy, and rights of others.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A fucktard, to justify his childish god fantasy, wrote some anti-science bullshit that means "The Magic Man did it". This is what I wrote for the asshole:
Sir, I suggest reading what scientists have discovered. Please google "Wikipedia abiogenesis". There was nothing supernatural about it. A god's magical powers were not required.
What I wrote:
Is American religious liberty in peril?
That's an interesting question but here in the 21st century, it shouldn't be a subject. Religions should have been extinct by now. We know too much about science to pretend a supernatural god was ever necessary for anything.
It would be so nice if people learned how to grow up and face facts. There is no god watching over us. There is nothing to worship. There is no magical 2nd life in a magical paradise. This is reality. Reality is not an opinion.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What someone else wrote:
Some times my right to be free from religion is infringed. Belief in some supernatural being or force is, by definition, literally nonsensical; therefore, it follows that it has no place in our system of justice and law. Those who suffer from the mass delusion that is religious belief should be free to believe as they choose and to practice their religion to the extent that practice is consistent with the law and does not impinge on the convenience, privacy, and rights of others.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A fucktard, to justify his childish god fantasy, wrote some anti-science bullshit that means "The Magic Man did it". This is what I wrote for the asshole:
Sir, I suggest reading what scientists have discovered. Please google "Wikipedia abiogenesis". There was nothing supernatural about it. A god's magical powers were not required.
Monday, July 22, 2019
Thursday, June 6, 2019
What is creationism?
What is creationism?
Creationism, also known as magical creationism and magical intelligent design creationism, is a religious fantasy. The idea is every species, including 350,000 species of beetles and all other living things including human apes, were magically created out of nothing. The magical creator is something that was invented a long time ago. Of course it's not real because there is no magic in the universe.
Does anyone agree with this childish bullshit?
Yes, especially in backward countries like Idiot America and the entire Middle East.
Why would anyone believe this bullshit?
It's a stupidity problem. Uneducated morons don't like science very much. They prefer magical explanations for the diversity of life.
Does science explain how life got a foothold on this planet and why there are millions of species, both living and extinct?
Yes, we have something called abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I found this at another website:
What is creationism?
In most Western countries creationism involves belief the Bible, and in particular the Book of Genesis, is a correct and factual account of how the universe and life came into being. Accordingly, their common view is that God created the universe and all kinds of animals and plants within a single seven day week less than 10,000 years ago.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
At the same website there is survey of students in Australia. Unlike Idiot America, virtually everyone accepts the established truth of evolution.
Creationism, also known as magical creationism and magical intelligent design creationism, is a religious fantasy. The idea is every species, including 350,000 species of beetles and all other living things including human apes, were magically created out of nothing. The magical creator is something that was invented a long time ago. Of course it's not real because there is no magic in the universe.
Does anyone agree with this childish bullshit?
Yes, especially in backward countries like Idiot America and the entire Middle East.
Why would anyone believe this bullshit?
It's a stupidity problem. Uneducated morons don't like science very much. They prefer magical explanations for the diversity of life.
Does science explain how life got a foothold on this planet and why there are millions of species, both living and extinct?
Yes, we have something called abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I found this at another website:
What is creationism?
In most Western countries creationism involves belief the Bible, and in particular the Book of Genesis, is a correct and factual account of how the universe and life came into being. Accordingly, their common view is that God created the universe and all kinds of animals and plants within a single seven day week less than 10,000 years ago.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
At the same website there is survey of students in Australia. Unlike Idiot America, virtually everyone accepts the established truth of evolution.
Friday, March 29, 2019
Monday, March 25, 2019
What Steven Jay Gould wrote about an anti-science moron on the United States Supreme Court in 1987.
I found this quote in a blog called Rapid Uplift and also in the book "Darwin's Origin of Species" by Janet Browne and at Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding.
We define evolution, using Darwin's phrase, as "descent with modification" from prior living things. Our documentation of life's evolutionary tree records one of science's greatest triumphs, a profoundly liberating discovery on the oldest maxim that truth can make us free. We have made this discovery by recognizing what can be answered and what must be left alone. If Justice Scalia heeded our definitions and our practices, he would understand why creationism cannot qualify as science. He would also, by the way, sense the excitement of evolution and its evidence; no person of substance could be unmoved by something so interesting.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is from Rapid Uplift:
Monday, February 15, 2016
Stephen Jay Gould On Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding About Evolution Science
The United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died a couple of days ago. I remembered an essay on him written by Stephen Jay Gould. The occasion was Justice Scalia 's dissenting opinion in the 1987 case that invalidated the State of Louisiana 's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." Louisiana was in effect arguing that "Creation Science" be put on the same footing as the theory of evolution in science classrooms.
Here is an excerpt that goes to the core of Justice Scalia's misunderstanding about what the theory of evolution seeks to elucidate:
Justice Scalia has defined evolution as the search for life's origin--and nothing more. He keeps speaking about "the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life" when he means to designate evolution. He writes that "the legislature wanted to ensure that students would be free to decide for themselves how life began based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence." Never does he even hint that evolution might be the study of how life changes after it originates--the entire panoply of transformation from simple molecules to all modern multi-cellular complexity.
and a wonderful concluding passage-
Consider also, indeed especially, Scalia's false concept of science. He equates creation and evolution because creationists can't explain life's beginning, while evolutionists can't resolve the ultimate origin of the inorganic components that later aggregated to life. But this inability is the very heart of creationist logic and the central reason why their doctrine is not science, while science's inability to specify the ultimate origin of matter is irrelevant because we are not trying to do any such thing. We know that we can't, and we do not even consider such a question as part of science.
We understand Hutton's wisdom. We do not search for unattainable ultimates.
We define evolution, using Darwin's phrase, as "descent with modification" from prior living things. Our documentation of life's evolutionary tree records one of science's greatest triumphs, a profoundly liberating discovery on the oldest maxim that truth can make us free. We have made this discovery by recognizing what can be answered and what must be left alone. If Justice Scalia heeded our definitions and our practices, he would understand why creationism cannot qualify as science. He would also, by the way, sense the excitement of evolution and its evidence; no person of substance could be unmoved by something so interesting. Only Aristotle's creator may be so impassive.
Don Quixote recognized "no limits but the sky," but became thereby the literary embodiment of unattainable reverie. G.K Chesterton understood that any discipline must define its borders of fruitfulness. He spoke for painting, but you may substitute any creative enterprise: "Art is limitation: the essence of every picture is the frame."
Let me add here that although the problem of the origin of life is not addressed directly by the theory of evolution, it does come under the purview of being a scientific problem. When Gould writes "we do not even consider such a question as part of science", he means specifically the theory of evolution. Creationists would have you think that life began as some miraculous spark, a forever mysterious event that is beyond scientific inquiry. Not so. Basic chemistry is making headway in our understanding of how inanimate matter can aggregate to form self replicating entities. See this fine post by Ashutosh Jogalekar on how chemists ponder the Origin Of Life problem.
We define evolution, using Darwin's phrase, as "descent with modification" from prior living things. Our documentation of life's evolutionary tree records one of science's greatest triumphs, a profoundly liberating discovery on the oldest maxim that truth can make us free. We have made this discovery by recognizing what can be answered and what must be left alone. If Justice Scalia heeded our definitions and our practices, he would understand why creationism cannot qualify as science. He would also, by the way, sense the excitement of evolution and its evidence; no person of substance could be unmoved by something so interesting.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is from Rapid Uplift:
Monday, February 15, 2016
Stephen Jay Gould On Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding About Evolution Science
The United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died a couple of days ago. I remembered an essay on him written by Stephen Jay Gould. The occasion was Justice Scalia 's dissenting opinion in the 1987 case that invalidated the State of Louisiana 's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." Louisiana was in effect arguing that "Creation Science" be put on the same footing as the theory of evolution in science classrooms.
Here is an excerpt that goes to the core of Justice Scalia's misunderstanding about what the theory of evolution seeks to elucidate:
Justice Scalia has defined evolution as the search for life's origin--and nothing more. He keeps speaking about "the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life" when he means to designate evolution. He writes that "the legislature wanted to ensure that students would be free to decide for themselves how life began based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence." Never does he even hint that evolution might be the study of how life changes after it originates--the entire panoply of transformation from simple molecules to all modern multi-cellular complexity.
and a wonderful concluding passage-
Consider also, indeed especially, Scalia's false concept of science. He equates creation and evolution because creationists can't explain life's beginning, while evolutionists can't resolve the ultimate origin of the inorganic components that later aggregated to life. But this inability is the very heart of creationist logic and the central reason why their doctrine is not science, while science's inability to specify the ultimate origin of matter is irrelevant because we are not trying to do any such thing. We know that we can't, and we do not even consider such a question as part of science.
We understand Hutton's wisdom. We do not search for unattainable ultimates.
We define evolution, using Darwin's phrase, as "descent with modification" from prior living things. Our documentation of life's evolutionary tree records one of science's greatest triumphs, a profoundly liberating discovery on the oldest maxim that truth can make us free. We have made this discovery by recognizing what can be answered and what must be left alone. If Justice Scalia heeded our definitions and our practices, he would understand why creationism cannot qualify as science. He would also, by the way, sense the excitement of evolution and its evidence; no person of substance could be unmoved by something so interesting. Only Aristotle's creator may be so impassive.
Don Quixote recognized "no limits but the sky," but became thereby the literary embodiment of unattainable reverie. G.K Chesterton understood that any discipline must define its borders of fruitfulness. He spoke for painting, but you may substitute any creative enterprise: "Art is limitation: the essence of every picture is the frame."
Let me add here that although the problem of the origin of life is not addressed directly by the theory of evolution, it does come under the purview of being a scientific problem. When Gould writes "we do not even consider such a question as part of science", he means specifically the theory of evolution. Creationists would have you think that life began as some miraculous spark, a forever mysterious event that is beyond scientific inquiry. Not so. Basic chemistry is making headway in our understanding of how inanimate matter can aggregate to form self replicating entities. See this fine post by Ashutosh Jogalekar on how chemists ponder the Origin Of Life problem.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Biology teachers don't waste their time talking about childish anti-science religious fantasies like magical creationism.
Biology teachers teach the science of evolution. Should they be forced to give equal time to the religious belief in creationism?
116 answers.
Many of the answers were excellent. The best answer had something interesting about abiogenesis.
Some of the answers were written by bible-thumping Christian fucktards. Morons for Jeebus like to advertise their extreme stupidity.
Some of these Christians, besides being insane, are stupid fucking assholes.
A very small minority of Christians accept the established truth of evolution but they have a problem. Their dead Magic Jeebus Man was creationist. Why do these Christians worship an uneducated moron?
Christianity is bullshit. Everything about it is ridiculous. Christianity is brain damage. If Christians don't realize how sick they are, they will waste their entire lives being a fucking idiot.
"Duh, duh, Christ died for your sins, duh."
"Duh, duh, you must have faith, duh."
Thank goodness I'm not infected with their disease.
116 answers.
Many of the answers were excellent. The best answer had something interesting about abiogenesis.
Some of the answers were written by bible-thumping Christian fucktards. Morons for Jeebus like to advertise their extreme stupidity.
Some of these Christians, besides being insane, are stupid fucking assholes.
A very small minority of Christians accept the established truth of evolution but they have a problem. Their dead Magic Jeebus Man was creationist. Why do these Christians worship an uneducated moron?
Christianity is bullshit. Everything about it is ridiculous. Christianity is brain damage. If Christians don't realize how sick they are, they will waste their entire lives being a fucking idiot.
"Duh, duh, Christ died for your sins, duh."
"Duh, duh, you must have faith, duh."
Thank goodness I'm not infected with their disease.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Somebody with the internet name "Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods" explains the problem with Christian theocratic assholes in Idiot America.
Biology teachers teach the science of evolution. Should they be forced to give equal time to the religious belief in creationism?
This is just another step on the slippery slope to eliminating Separation of Church and State and establishing Christianity as a State Religion. What starts off as "elective" and "optional" will eventually become "required" and "mandatory". The Religious Right has wanted to recast the U.S. as a theocratic regime pretty much since the country was founded. It's how we ended up with the words "In God We Trust" on our currency, and the words "Under God" added to the Pledge. Both of which are violations of the First Amendment / Establishment Clause. This is the road that leads to "The Handmaid's Tale" in the long run.
The long game here is indoctrination of students into the Christian faith, which will produce a generation of future lawmakers and voters willing to sponsor bills and vote for them that abridge the religious Freedom of all other faiths, just the same way a WV lawmaker recently sponsored a Bill to make "The Bible" the State Book. Religion belongs at home and the church - not in schools. School-led morning prayer was taken out of public schools because it violates the FA/EC and Freedom of Religion. Students have the freedom to pray anytime they like, as long as they are not disrupting class or trying to make other students pray with them.
When people say that "We need to put God back in school" or "Prayer back in school" what they are saying is that they want Christianity to be given that right and no other religion. If you extend that right to ONE religion, then you must extend it to ALL religions. So, let's have literacy classes on the Bible, the Koran, the Quran, the Elder Eddas, the Satanic Bible, and the so-called "holy books" of every other religion. Let's fill the school day with prayers, devotionals, and services for them all, because we OBVIOUSLY don't need to spend ANY time teaching Science, Math, History, Health, English, Art, or anything else.
-- Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What someone else wrote about abiogeneses. Very interesting. (internet name "sky"):
Biology teachers teach the science of evolution. Should they be forced to give equal time to the religious belief in creationism?
No. Teachers of the sciences should only teach science, meaning the facts and theories that withstand the scientific process such as peer review. Religious beliefs and creationism are nothing more than mythology which have no foundation in science whatsoever and no evidence whatsoever that support them. If creationism actually had more evidence to support it then the scientific community would have accepted it long ago and dismissed evolution.
However, there is an absolute mountain of evidence supporting evolution so that as theories go it is even more well supported than the theory of gravity, and research into abiogenesis has found how easily the building blocks of life--amino acids, proteins, nucleotides, etc.--were brought to the planet on comets and asteroids or synthesized through the chemistry processes of the early Earth. That includes making self-replicating molecules in laboratory conditions and discovering how early cells formed with membranes of bipolar lipids that are attracted to water on one side and repel water on the other side so they all come together to form a bubble membrane.
Evolution is incredibly well established and supported science. Creationism is, at best, a hypothesis which has no evidence and cannot be tested or investigated. If biology teachers should be forced to teach creationism then medical school should be forced to teach the story of the stork in their classes on reproduction and embryology.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Somebody else wrote this stuff (internet name "Lighting the Way to Reality"):
Evolution has all of the evidence.
Creationism has nothing but myth-based nonsense and the misrepresentations, deceptions, omission of facts, and outright falsehoods by its promoters in their websites and books.
It would not be suitable to teach students that crap!
Several of the creationist responders to your question have posted their usual nonsense showing they don't know squat about evolution nor of the evidence for it.
In rebuttal to their nonsense that evolution is just speculation and has no evidence in support of it, let's take a look at what CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, a Research/Associate Professor of Science at the Christian-based Bryon College, says about the evidence for evolution.
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
"I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
"Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory."
But, of course, since he is a creationist, he then goes on to say:
"That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution."
Todd’s Blog: the truth about evolution
So there you have it. The Bible is the word of god, period, and the facts be damned. And that is the attitude of creationists regardless of whether they know anything about the evidence for evolution or not.
At least Professor Wood is honest in saying that his rejection of evolution is a matter of faith rather than resorting to lies and deceit in an attempt to disprove it, as the promoters of creationism do in their despicable websites and books.
This is just another step on the slippery slope to eliminating Separation of Church and State and establishing Christianity as a State Religion. What starts off as "elective" and "optional" will eventually become "required" and "mandatory". The Religious Right has wanted to recast the U.S. as a theocratic regime pretty much since the country was founded. It's how we ended up with the words "In God We Trust" on our currency, and the words "Under God" added to the Pledge. Both of which are violations of the First Amendment / Establishment Clause. This is the road that leads to "The Handmaid's Tale" in the long run.
The long game here is indoctrination of students into the Christian faith, which will produce a generation of future lawmakers and voters willing to sponsor bills and vote for them that abridge the religious Freedom of all other faiths, just the same way a WV lawmaker recently sponsored a Bill to make "The Bible" the State Book. Religion belongs at home and the church - not in schools. School-led morning prayer was taken out of public schools because it violates the FA/EC and Freedom of Religion. Students have the freedom to pray anytime they like, as long as they are not disrupting class or trying to make other students pray with them.
When people say that "We need to put God back in school" or "Prayer back in school" what they are saying is that they want Christianity to be given that right and no other religion. If you extend that right to ONE religion, then you must extend it to ALL religions. So, let's have literacy classes on the Bible, the Koran, the Quran, the Elder Eddas, the Satanic Bible, and the so-called "holy books" of every other religion. Let's fill the school day with prayers, devotionals, and services for them all, because we OBVIOUSLY don't need to spend ANY time teaching Science, Math, History, Health, English, Art, or anything else.
-- Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What someone else wrote about abiogeneses. Very interesting. (internet name "sky"):
Biology teachers teach the science of evolution. Should they be forced to give equal time to the religious belief in creationism?
No. Teachers of the sciences should only teach science, meaning the facts and theories that withstand the scientific process such as peer review. Religious beliefs and creationism are nothing more than mythology which have no foundation in science whatsoever and no evidence whatsoever that support them. If creationism actually had more evidence to support it then the scientific community would have accepted it long ago and dismissed evolution.
However, there is an absolute mountain of evidence supporting evolution so that as theories go it is even more well supported than the theory of gravity, and research into abiogenesis has found how easily the building blocks of life--amino acids, proteins, nucleotides, etc.--were brought to the planet on comets and asteroids or synthesized through the chemistry processes of the early Earth. That includes making self-replicating molecules in laboratory conditions and discovering how early cells formed with membranes of bipolar lipids that are attracted to water on one side and repel water on the other side so they all come together to form a bubble membrane.
Evolution is incredibly well established and supported science. Creationism is, at best, a hypothesis which has no evidence and cannot be tested or investigated. If biology teachers should be forced to teach creationism then medical school should be forced to teach the story of the stork in their classes on reproduction and embryology.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Somebody else wrote this stuff (internet name "Lighting the Way to Reality"):
Evolution has all of the evidence.
Creationism has nothing but myth-based nonsense and the misrepresentations, deceptions, omission of facts, and outright falsehoods by its promoters in their websites and books.
It would not be suitable to teach students that crap!
Several of the creationist responders to your question have posted their usual nonsense showing they don't know squat about evolution nor of the evidence for it.
In rebuttal to their nonsense that evolution is just speculation and has no evidence in support of it, let's take a look at what CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, a Research/Associate Professor of Science at the Christian-based Bryon College, says about the evidence for evolution.
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
"I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
"Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory."
But, of course, since he is a creationist, he then goes on to say:
"That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution."
Todd’s Blog: the truth about evolution
So there you have it. The Bible is the word of god, period, and the facts be damned. And that is the attitude of creationists regardless of whether they know anything about the evidence for evolution or not.
At least Professor Wood is honest in saying that his rejection of evolution is a matter of faith rather than resorting to lies and deceit in an attempt to disprove it, as the promoters of creationism do in their despicable websites and books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)