Thursday, 28 May 2020

[www.keralites.net] Re: [TheBecoming] Re: Why Darwin’s View of Life is Unscientific? (Part – 3: Many Scientists are still Hypnotized by Darwin's Warm Little Pond)

 

How can you say that scientists are brainwashing you or anyone else for that matter. What is there for anyone to profit from it?
I studied engineering and so I know a lot of Physics and Chemistry. But I know nothing about Biology and evolution except what I gathered from books. There is an excellent book on evolution titled "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins. Before you blah blah any further you are advised to read a few books on evolution. Your outbursts against evolution reminds me of the dictum "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
Science and evolution are based on evidence and if you think evolution amounts to mere stories all you have to do is provide evidence for your views.
Einstein is the the biggest scientist who ever lived. He asserted that the cosmos was stationary. Came Hubble and he provided evidence that the universe is expanding all the time and the stars and galaxies are flying apart from each other. So on this matter Einsteins theory of a stationary universe was discarded in favor of Hubble's theory. That did not tarnish Einstein's reputation. That is what science an atheism are all about. We dont acknowledge any theory just because some god or godman or Einstein said it. We need evidence- nothing but irrefutable evidence.
So my dear friend instead of railing against Darwin all the time why dont you put the evidence where your mouth is. If you cant do that please shutup and stop parading your ignorance and your arrogance.

On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 10:50, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

As we are being continuously stating that the people are even losing their ability to have common sense because of the hypnotism of science especially by the illusions influence of hypothesis like Darwinism. You say that whole is more than the sum of parts and yet you try to deny the original whole (God) of which you are only an insignificant participant. Denying God (adi purush) is like denying your origin, the being of all beings. Your denying God is comparable to the ignorant nose who denies the existence of zygote just because it can't see it now. You have parents and your parents have parents, like that the Life is coming from Life — biogenesis. Om Purnamidam sloka of Ishaupanisad it is being told that whole comes from whole (Life comes from Life) and a whole is not an outcome of mechanical assembly or chemical accumulation of parts. Your nose👃has not appeared by an emergent property of parts. It came by an organic developmental process. Emergence concept can't even explain you how a shoe that you are wearing appeared hence obviously your own origin is beyond the scope of such irrational hypothesis. 


History is a mystery to the science. Science is so helpless that it can't tell you what you had consumed as food a week back, it can't tell you what is your date of birth, it can't tell you who your parents are (it needs guidance on whom to do DNA test, if it tries an impossible task to do DNA test on all living beings on Earth and imagine that your parents are doing research in outer space then science will be perplexed in its quest! The case will be more complex if it encounters in its search of your parents a case of identical twins) and so on. If science can't tell you even about your immediate parents, your date of birth and so on without the guidance then how can we expect it to tell us about the time of origin of first life on Earth and about original Life! 

Any rational person can easily understand this. If you can realise how you are brainwashed by scientific hypnotism then you can also find the way to come out of it. To obtain a degree like PhD is not to become dull headed but to show its worth by giving logical and evidential explanation of what you are claiming. Otherwise such degrees can be seen as nothing but just rubber stamps.. 


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:24, Srinivasa Rao Kankipati ksrao34g@gmail.com [TheBecoming]
 

Thank you Dhanapala Ji, for explaining so beautifully the concept of "Emergent Properties". Yes, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.. Therein lies the mystery and the challenge for thinking minds. We cannot ask scientists to come up with an explanation by day-after-tomorrow evening.. Even for indulging in meaningless and unsustainable speculations about existence of God, man has taken so much time. The weapon in the hands of such speculators is to fling back questions like, "What do you know about God?". And what is their definition of God? It is, "God is the supreme being who makes things happen?" Who is God? "You ignoramus, you don't know God? He is the superior power under whom things happen". This is a circular definition. Most people pay respect to God because, just in case He is there and you don't respect Him, He may finish you off!
KS Rao, MA CAIIB PhD.

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 18:25, Bodhi Dhanapala bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Now you have given up th the "incredulity argument" and come up with a new one.
You say "Chemicals don't have a property like personality, you can yourself check the properties of all subatomic particles, atoms, molecules and their combination, if you find anyone of them have a property of personality then let us know with reference".


Before I explain about personality, let us take a simpler thing.
Have you heard of "wetness"?
You may ask, chemicals like H2O do not have "wetness".
If you take just one molecule of H2O it does not have wetness.
Even a 100 does not.
But take 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules (e.g., Avogadro number of molecules )  at room temperature, now you have a property called "wetness"..
The whole is MORE than the parts.
Assemblies of particles have properties NOT found individual building blocks.
Such properties are called "emergent properties".
A virus is just a bunch of protein molecules. But the molecules, thousands in number,  assemble together at the right conditions of temperature and pH to join up as a "virus", just  as water molecules assemble together to make liquid water when cooled.
Chemists can synthesize simple viruses. They are NOT living organisms..
But put them into a living being, and they will make you SICK.
So, individual protein molecules  don't have infectiousness, or personality, but a collections  of them put together in a certain way have infectiousness, and that is their personality!
Such properties are called "emergent properties".
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 1:32:12 AM GMT-5, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 

{{{{According to me, science consists of all things proved so far}}}}

Does it has the proof for 
1. Life coming from Matter – Abiogenesis?
(Science is already teaching about it for more than 100 years and the preachers of science – scientists never care to provide proof for the same!)
2. Fish coming from bacterium?
(Those in science who are preaching that we came from apes, have they ever provided the proof for the same? Such preachers may believe that their forefathers were apes but why they expect whole world should accept it just on the basis of faith?)
3. Order coming from explosion – Big bang?
(Many gullible people happily accept that by an explosion everything created in our universe but they have problem when it is being told that things are coming by an organic developmental processes [like a miraculous development that we see in embryological development] from first life — God. That is called 'hypnotism of scientists' that our society is suffering at present.)

{{{{God theorists assert that God is monitoring everything in the universe, and also assert that the fact that the universe is running is itself the proof that He is running it. If He is running, then why is there so much evil in this world and why at all He has taken 3.77 billion years to bring, say, the earth and its inhabitants to this shape and that too an imperfect shape?}}}}
It appears that you are unaware of the meaning of term God and thus you are using it in such an ignorant manner. Your question sounds like a criminal is asking why he/she has to suffer in jail when the king of the country is capable of giving facility for good life. First of all the criminal must know why he/she landed in jail (material universe) and then the further inquiry can be made about the reality beyond jail (spiritual world) where the conditioning of jail is not present.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:38, Srinivasa Rao Kankipati ksrao34g@gmail..com [TheBecoming]
 

According to me, science consists of all things proved so far, and religion consists of all things not disproved so far. Science will take time to prove that a mysterious force called life will enter a body as soon as it is fit to entertain life. This is an irrefutable fact. But none can throw a challenge to a scientist and ask him to prove it in twenty days or else accept the God Theory, that God is "manifesting" himself in all beings or that he is "running" the universe from his far-off throne. My belief is that God, if he exists, may or may not have created Nature and its rules, by which it gradually evolves and is still evolving. And the glaring fact is that, He wont interfere in Nature's working, no matter how we pray. If He tries to intervene in favour of any favoured person, Nature will say, "Sorry, Sir, Please keep off. I cannot deviate from my rules even if You sponsor". God theorists assert that God is monitoring everything in the universe, and also assert that the fact that the universe is running is itself the proof that He is running it. If He is running, then why is there so much evil in this world and why at all He has taken 3.77 billion years to bring, say, the earth and its inhabitants to this shape and that too an imperfect shape?

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 21:09, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

{{{{When you say "You seems to be either impatient or don't have intelligence to understand things" again you are making ad hominem" remarks and  attack at the personal level, instead of staying with the facts.}}}}

You have a personality? What are you taking about? It is completely contradicting your own stand. According to your own argument you are nothing more than a bunch of molecules. Chemicals don't have a property like personality, you can yourself check the properties of all subatomic particles, atoms, molecules and their combination, if you find anyone of them have a property of personality then let us know with reference. Laboratory atoms and molecules cannot feel offended and insulated because they have no ability to feel anything. You say that you are being personally attacked by a statement but you are attacking the whole humanity and entire living sphere with your irrational idea that life is nothing but a bunch of chemicals. Please think about that!

{{{{So your whole argument is based on the incredibility of believing that such complex systems can arise naturally.
Have you looked at the complexity of an eddy of whirling water? 
Have you looked at the complex Lisajou's figures that come out of the motion of coupled pendula?, and what happens to them if you add chaotic trajectories. Have you tried the well known "game of life" where you easily create life-like complexity on your computer screen starting from simple building blocks?
Then you will realize that given enough time, ANY DIGREE OF COMPLEXITY can be achieved.}}}}

Forget about living cell, please do a brain yoga and try to inquire 'can the unguided forces in nature produce the building that you are living from readily available building blocks?' The computer simulation "game of life" is nothing more than a cartoon show which will make children happy with their achievement only in imagination as they often seek happiness from video games. The plain fact is this 'all the scientists in the world working together and using all their science cannot produce a blade of grass.'

{{{{No one has told you that a plane manifested like that. We KNOW how the plane manifested.
The question is how living cells came into being. That is being answered by Synthetic Biology.}}}}

Just by using a term synthetic biology you can deceive the gullible public but not to those who understand the fact that scientists always started with chemicals and end up with chemicals, they have no way to produce biology from chemistry. So it is always 'Life comes from Life' - biogenesis and synthetic biology is a term used only to deceive the gullible public and synthetic biologists cannot show by their experiment the process of abiogenesis.

{{{{In 2010, the Venter lab announced that it had created the first bacterium with an entirely synthetic genome with  no intervention from "God".}}}}

With proper brain yoga you have to try to understand what Venter actually did and then you will realize that Venter has only achieved a massive genetic engineering in a already existing living cell and it has nothing to do with abiogenesis. You may watch: https://youtu.be/9a6bWllKfmM
 
It is not surprising for us to see that you are being completely brainwashed by Darwin's warm little pond concept. You need proper brain yoga to come out of this hallucination:  Why Darwin's View of Life is Unscientific?

Why Darwin's View of Life is Unscientific?

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 6:37, Bodhi Dhanapala bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com [TheBecoming]
 

When you say "You seems to be either impatient or don't have intelligence to understand things" again you are making ad hominem" remarks and  attack at the personal level, instead of staying with the facts...

Now you are saying "If someone tells you that iron, plastic and other materials became complex by the process of evolution over time and thus airplane manifested, then will you believe it? A living cell is even much more exceptionally complex system than an artifact like airplane".

So your whole argument is based on the incredibility of believing that such complex systems can arise naturally.
Have you looked at the complexity of an eddy of whirling water?
Have you looked at the complex Lisajou's figures that come out of the motion of coupled pendula?, and what happens to them if you add chaotic trajectories. Have you tried the well known "game of life" where you easily create life-like complexity on your computer screen starting from simple building blocks?
Then you will realize that given enough time, ANY DIGREE OF COMPLEXITY can be achieved.
 

Conway's Game of Life

The Game of Life, also known simply as Life, is a cellular automaton devised by the British mathematician John H...



No one has told you that a plane manifested like that. We KNOW how the plane manifested.
The question is how living cells came into being. That is being answered by Synthetic Biology.

That question is being answered already in many labs.

Pollack A. "U.S. Bioethics Commission Gives Green Light to Synthetic Biology." The New York Times. 16 December 2010

In 2010, the Venter lab announced that it had created the first bacterium with an entirely synthetic genome with  no intervention from "God".

 Annaluru N, Muller H, Mitchel LA, et al. "Total Synthesis of a Functional Designer Eukaryotic Chromosome." Science 344, 55–8 (2014).


Hutchison CA, Chuang R, Noskov VN, et al. "Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome." Science 351, 1414 (2016)




On Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:10:20 AM GMT-5, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 

Thank you Devender ji. 


This is all common sense and we don't need fertile brains of scientists to understand this. At present it seems scientists and their blind followers don't have even this common sense.


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:23, DevinderSingh Gulati devindersingh....gulati2@gmail.com [TheBecoming]
 

Bravo Surashji. Most cogent reply.

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:06 AM Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

You seems to be either impatient or don't have intelligence to understand things.... Our video presentation has given the recent reference about how scientists are perplexed about place of life's origin and thus they are fighting with each other about it. They are far from explaining the mechanism for origin of life.


You have correctly told "The chemical evolution hypothesis in the present context is  hypothesis that molecules that can copy themselves (reproduced) evolved from even smaller molecules like methane, carbon dioxide , inorganic phosphates etc., as these are/were abundantly found in the early earth when life appeared some 3.77 billion years ago." but have you ever thought about the stupidity of this proposal by scientists? 

If someone tells you that iron, plastic and other materials became complex by the process of evolution over time and thus airplane manifested, then will you believe it? A living cell is even much more exceptionally complex system than an artifact like airplane. It is only those who have no rationality, such dull headed people accept these sort of foolish proposals by scientists and do not protest the miss utilisation of public funds in such wasteful acts of childishness on the name of scientific research.

You are only talking about production of parts (molecules) but those parts are already available in a living cell.. Can scientists produce a cell by joining those parts (by taking needed molecules from a living cell)? Can scientists produce Bodhi Dhanapala by joining the separated parts (say, eyes, nose, kidney, brain and so on) of the body of Bodhi Dhanapala? Think about it! Life (organisms) doesn't come by mechanical assembly or chemical accumulation of parts. Organisms manifest by a miraculous (unknown and unknowable for present mechanistic science) organic developmental process. Even a child can understand this..

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 4:27, Bodhi Dhanapala bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com [TheBecoming]
 

I don't make ad hominem remarks. I am not ignorant, and neither are you..

The chemical evolution hypothesis in the present context is  hypothesis that molecules that can copy themselves (reproduced) evolved from even smaller molecules like methane, carbon dioxide , inorganic phosphates etc., as these are/were abundantly found in the early earth when life appeared some 3.77 billion years ago.

What ever Darwin said about it in the 19th century is not relevant now, because we have more detailed knowledge about all this, and it is such science that should be discussed.

Here are some research papers  of most recent relevant research:

Research
09 March 2020 | Open Access
Hydrodynamic accumulation of small molecules and ions into cell-sized liposomes against a concentration gradient

How small molecules could have accumulated within hypothetical protocells on the early Earth .…
Hironori Sugiyama, Toshihisa Osaki[…]Taro Toyota
 Communications Chemistry 3, 32 (2020)



Research
06 May 2020
Genomic competition for noise reduction shaped evolutionary landscape of mir-4673

    Ramin M. Farahani, Saba Rezaei-Lotfi & Neil Hunter

Systems Biology and Applications 6, 12

Research
04 May 2020 | Open Access
Turbulent coherent structures and early life below the Kolmogorov scale
    Madison S. Krieger, Sam Sinai & Martin A. Nowak
Nature Communications 11, 2192


30 April 2020 | Open Access
NMR analysis of nucleotide π-stacking in prebiotically relevant crowded environment
Molecular crowding such as that which may occur in model protocells is known to reduce the rate and fidelity of…
Niraja V. Bapat, Harshad Paithankar[…]Sudha Rajamani
Communications Chemistry 3, 51

Research
03 April 2020 | Open Access
Intercellular communication between artificial cells by allosteric amplification of a molecular signal
Bastiaan C. Buddingh', Janneke Elzinga & Jan C. M..... van Hest
Nature Communications 11, 1652

Research
11 March 2020 | Open Access
Compositional heterogeneity confers selective advantage to model protocellular membranes during the origins of cellular life
Susovan Sarkar, Shikha Dagar[…]Sudha Rajamani
Scientific Reports 10, 4483




On Thursday, May 14, 2020, 11:13:47 AM GMT-5, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 

Namaste Bodhi Dhanapala ji.

You seems to be completely ignorant about "chemical evolution" hypothesis. Please spend sometime to learn these subjects and then comment. 

We have not yet discussed anything about the problems with the steps after chemical evolution (about biological evolution). However, that will also come in our future parts. 

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.


On Thursday, 14 May, 2020, 09:37:17 pm IST, Bodhi Dhanapala <bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com> wrote:


As I already mentioned, "Darwin's warm little pond", or even the fossile record  are NOT needed for the theory of evolution which claims that humans descended from apes, and from earlier forms of life, and traces this lineage right down to unicellular  living beings (eucaryotes, archea) etc.

We now have evidence  from genetics, molecular biology to prove this step by stem. Also, such single cells have now been  produced artificially in Vitro.

Unfortunately the U tube speaker does not deal with any of this, but merely claiming that "public money" is being spent for this.

Merely denying some thing is enough.



On Thu May 14 2020 09:19:11 GMT-0500 (EST), Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:




--

"All new ideas good or bad, great or small start with a one-man minority" - anonymous

A man without god is a man. A God without man is nothing!!

The greatest knowledge is the knowledge that there is so much more to know and the greatest discovery is the discovery that there is so much more to discover

__._,_.___
Posted by: Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)
KERALITES - A moderated eGroup exclusively for Keralites...

To subscribe send a mail to Keralites-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Send your posts to Keralites@yahoogroups.com.
Send your suggestions to Keralites-owner@yahoogroups.com.

To unsubscribe send a mail to Keralites-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Homepage: http://www.keralites.net

.

__,_._,___
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)