I conclude evolution is guided (page 11)

Ruby456

cofty, you don't want to see any interaction anywhere do you? If this is the case you simply will not understand what Kenso Soai was saying. Kate understands him - listen to her for goodness sake

cofty

If thisi is the case you simply will not understand what Kenso Soai was saying. Kate understands him - listen to her for goodness sake - Ruby

Ruby do you know anything at all about Kenso Soai? Have you read about his amazing experiment?

His paper is the absolute refutation of Kate's point. He proved that the "left-handedness" of life arose as an inevitable result of autocatalysis. It is not a sign of guidance it is bucket chemistry.

Kate had not heard about Soai's work until I told her about it. Kate doesn't understand Soai at all. In this entire thread she can't bring herself to say his name. She continues to pretend he doesn't exist.

I will make this topic the subject of my next but one thread in my Evolution is a Fact series and explain it in more detail.

Ruby456

good idea please do that. well I have been reading Kenso Soai this morning and would like to take up your challenge as my understanding tells me that you want to make everything into an integrable system and therefore already given and homogeneous but Kate is talking about what is not completely so and makes way for interaction. So imo she does agree with Kenso Soai - at least she does not contradict him

Landy

Simon and Cofty have made my points, but I'll just add that to start with a preconceived belief and then try (unsuccessfully) to twist existing facts and theories to match that belief is the most dishonest form of thinking and reasoning there is.

cofty

So imo she does agree with Kenso Soai - Ruby

Kenso Soai's greatest scientific achievement was to show that homochirality occurs naturally - no guidance required.

Read the title of the thread and the OP and tell me how you can say Kate agrees with Soai? Kate and Soai are saying exactly opposite things. Soai is the world renowned expert on asymmetric autocatalysis.

Ask yourself why Kate has made dozens of posts on this thread and studiously avoided mentioning the inconvenient fact that Soai solved this puzzle in 1995.

Ruby456

Landy, why is it dishonest to start with a preconceived belief? a foetus in the womb develops in a protected environment and this is everyone's experience - we arrive in this world with the preconceived notion that we are part of something bigger and protective - indeed I would argue that this a normal resting space.

freddo

I haven't read all the previous posts - sorry.

I do sometimes wonder if intelligent life "has always been" rather than coming from "nothing".

I sometimes wonder whether there has been a creation or guiding of evolution but if so (and I don't believe it is so - just one of different possibilities) I don't believe it is anything other than "let's set this experiment going and leave it to it's own devices" - there is no evidence that speaks to me of a "God who cares (anymore)" as in "gives a damn" or even exists anymore if it ever did.

Like K99 said - I work at being comfortable not knowing.

Ruby456

cofty you do not understand what either Kate or I are saying.

example: you cannot make a strict opposition between what is guided and what is natural. Even Darwin used both in his thesis - he wrote about what seems to be bred and what seems to occur naturally.

If Kate wants to draw the conclusion that God is guiding - so be it.

Ruby456

yes freddo exactly - it is to do with ongoing processes of evolution before the big bang and in this scenario the big bang is part of evolution not the beginning of evolution but still the begining of our world

Landy

Landy, why is it dishonest to start with a preconceived belief?

Because you will always twist existing facts (and ignore others) to reach your desired conclusion. Which pretty much makes a mockery of your (royal your) whole reasoning process.

I conclude evolution is guided

Share this