Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 21:02 (2683 days ago) @ John Kalber

John: "But I don't understand the 'commercial interests' comment. We are not going to colonise the universe." No -hopefully! Virtually all astronomy is supported by private interests. This is so for NASA who’s funding is controlled by those same commercial interests that in practice control government funding. Billions of dollars are involved.If you imagine that commercial interest is not involved, try telling that to the Marines! Universities have 'chairs' etc funded in a similar manner. Consequently, the public purse etc.will not countenance any suggestion that the heart of cosmology lives up a gum tree! If you need an example of ‘commercial interest’, try ‘Boeing Defense, Space & Security’ for starters!

I certainly can see that aspect of the commercial side you point out.

John: It was mentioned that Biology does not work by the accretion atomic structures.I most definitely disagree! I feel sure that you didn't mean what you said.....Simple because Nature can manage only tiny steps and does not'do' arithmetic.

You are apparently not aware of Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory to explain the huge gaps in the fossil record. Tiny steps have not been demonstrated. Darwin hoped the Cambrian Explosion could be explained by finding intermediate forms. So far with new areas in Canada and China from that period, nothing fills the gap.

John: The origin of life itself poses a possibly unanswerable problem. However, the same class of problem applies to the origin of the constituent parts of atoms. The answer is the same as before. Matter is eternal, as are its effects. We cannot ‘make’ an atom without using bits of other atoms. Perhaps life is also an eternal ‘element’. The trouble with this idea is that unlike atoms we cannot take life apart. So, it remains an enigma!

On the other hand biologic research has taken cells apart so the mechanisms are known. Cells are like giant factories, constantly in production of proteins, following instructions from their individually modified genomes.

John: Once you see how this can work (accepting for a moment my thesis), the next steps will only be possible if sensitive, chemical awareness has been attained. This ability is demonstrated in even the most primitive life forms.

Yes, even bacteria are constant factories, in general reproducing themselves every 20 minutes

John: This magical assemblage is called life because it has the ability to regenerate itself into distinct and separate offspring. It should be noted that every cell in any offspring is itself distinctly alive and dies principally because the blood supply has been cut off.If it cannot do this, it is not alive.

Actually cell death in multicellular organisms is constantly programmed, with planned replacement, not related to blood supply.

John: The variety of life forms is extraordinary, whereas the inorganic formations are few.

We here all agree and refer to the bush of life with many strange and exotic branches

John: Now for the 'pebble' etc. “Out of the Blue” is a euphemism that, I suggest, betrays an attitude of mind that has chosen not to accept that the laws of nature entail influences that ‘open doors’ to a range of possible and automatic outcomes. If they didn’t there could be no mechanism for any change – at all! If you dispute this please suggest an alternative!

By laws of nature do you mean natural selection? Without a copy of a reference to what you are referring, I don't follow what you wrote..

John: In the ‘polemic’, much is made of some meaningless drivel. I think I agree with the laughing off those silly ideas and the conclusions he draws, but his wording rather confuses me. My ideas stem from my adoption as a child of the atheist ideology, which I freely admit was extensively discussed with my atheist father.

That certainly explains your atheism background.

John: Human emotions readily affect our thinking (and quite rightly so) but we need to see that we do not use them to override our reasoning.

I've always accepted the fact that emotions get in the way of logic.

John: The concept of ‘use’ has no place in natural activity. Evolution simply allows nature to evolve as its potential dictates. Therefore a discard in whole or in part must surely entail distinct processes that, eventually, so act.
More to come!

Does that comment mean you do not accept the theory of natural selection?