My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Climate scientist admits - climate science is untrustworthy | Main | Prepare for global cooling - it's official »

Comments

Grant

Grant Jacobs […] have been debating […] the origin of life

Nope.

You're welcome to your spiel on that topic, but that wasn’t what I was writing.

(Nor was it a ‘debate’, really. But have it your way, it seems to be your style to try make it into something much more that it was.)

Ian Wishart

You're a clever lad, Grant. You will have noticed that the posting of this crossed with your comment clarifying what you meant in the other thread...ie, this was already written.

However, it's where the rubber hits the road on the evolution debate, regardless. Unless you can come up with a credible explanation for origin of life, the protestations against design in nature seem a trifle hollow, don't you think?

Once one opens the door to a giant sky fairy flipping the switch, as Hawking conceded a decade ago (albeit he's tried and failed since then to argue against his concession), you can hardly lock said sky-fairy out of the debate about design.

Grant

Unless you can come up with a credible explanation for origin of life, the protestations against design in nature seem a trifle hollow, don't you think?

Nope. It’s your topic, not mine. Linking it to me isn’t correct, as you’ve acknowledged (thanks); as such there's no reason I "have" to address this.

Put it another way, corrected there’d be no linking this to me and it’d ‘just be another post’, which of course I have no obligation to address any more than any other post...

I appreciate your addressing in these comments that this ‘origin of life debate’ wasn’t mine or linked to me. I’d also appreciate your editing the post to reflect that if you would - it’s still incorrect as it stands.

To my reading, removing the first one-and-a-half paragraphs would correct it, e.g. starting, say, “On the subject of the origin of life, here's an extract from my book The Divinity Code […]”.

John Boy

Ian, I suggest you read "The Lost World of Genesis One" by John Walton.

He thinks the Bible is not talking about material creation in Genesis and to try to make it a science lesson misses the point and sells it way short. It makes perfect sense when read it the way the Jews would have read it.

Ian Wishart

FWIW...the metabolistic evolution theory took a heavy hit since this was first published:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101433.htm

Grant

Ian,

I see you are ignoring my polite requests to correct your error. You know your opening paragraphs are in error - it acknowledged as much yourself. Please revise them, thank you.

Grant

Er, Ian, you know I didn’t “admit” my phrasing was loose. I saw your alternative reading of it and put you right. Quite different. Seeing I haven’t written on the origin of life debate, my name really shouldn’t be on either the article above or your earlier one flogging my name.

Richard Grey

This attempt to stir debate is a bit contrived, Wishart, not to mention pathetic. No one cares!

SS Hamler

More Christians who don't understand cell biology ... fik - what to do?

Personally I blame the endcation system.

Heil the Fourth Reich!

Shunda barunda

So guys, how did life start then?

Duck and dodge......

Ryan Sproull

So guys, how did life start then?

Duck and dodge......

I don't know.

There, that wasn't so hard. Everyone should give it a try.

wfs

That's a good information.

Anon

Mr S Hawking will know. He thinks he knows everything about everything. I'm not sure he's right but what would I know?

Kathy

All I can say is that, Life is a gift from God. We should make the most of it because we only have one life. Right?

Shunda barunda

I don't know.

There, that wasn't so hard. Everyone should give it a try.

If only Atheists could be intellectually honest enough to do the same.
Would that be so hard? for an atheist to say "I don't know if God exists?"
But apparently it is.
Atheism is the most irrational of all religions.

Dov Henis

EarthLife Genesis By 2011 Data


- Earth's primal ORGANISMS are RNAs, good Sun radiation absorption-constraint, self-replicating mass formats. Corroborating
evidence: life's chirality and life's sleep.

- All EarthLife is evolved RNAs. All self-replicators are organisms, including genomes. DNA selected for some genomes being
energetically stabler than RNA.

- Life's drive: RNA's natural selection, enhance-maintain Earth's biosphere, exploit-postpone Sun's and Earth's energy prior
to their fueling universe expansion.

- Drive of Life's evolution: Natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass-formats/spin-arrays; must ingest energy-or-mass to
delay-postpone eventual own reconversion to energy, all of which is destined to fuel expansion of the universe. Universe
expansion reconverts singularity's mass to energy. Eventually, as nearly all massfuel is consumed, expansion will be
overcome by gravity to initiate re-empansion to singularity, reconverting ALL energy to ALL mass.


Dov Henis
(Comments From 22nd Century)
http://www.scientistsolutions.com/t18894-update+comprehension+of+universe_life+evolution%2c+of+rna_dna+mismatch_relati.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/user/profile/1655.page

Seed of Human-Chimp Genomes Diversity
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27OC4MFQSDYEU/blog/articles/53079
03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/54.page#5065
Evolution, Natural Selection, Derive From Cosmic Expansion
http://darwiniana.com/2010/09/05/the-question-reductionists-fear/
Rethink Evolution/Natural Selection
http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/29/comment-from-dov-henis/comment-page-1/

Coach Factory Outlet

expansion will be
overcome by gravity to initiate re-empansion to singularity, reconverting ALL energy to ALL mass.

Dov Henis

Earthlife Genesis Address:

EarthLife Genesis@Aromaticity.H-Bonding


A.
Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.

B.
Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.

A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted purines and their tautomers, are the most widely distributed kind of nitrogen-containing heterocycle in nature.

Aromaticity ( Kekule, Loschmidt, Thiele) is essential also for the Krebs Cycle, for energy production.

(Wikipedia)

C.
Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.

Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate.
Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection – self replication of RNAs. ALL Earth life is evolved RNAs. The drive and purpose of EarthLife is to enhance RNAs replication, its natural selection.

Aromaticity enables good constraining of energy and good propensity to hydrogen bonding. The address of EarthLife Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity. Hydrogen Bonding.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/

5 Hour Energy Shot No Crash

Very good information. Lucky me I ran across your blog by accident (stumbleupon). I have bookmarked it for later!

The comments to this entry are closed.