News1 min ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
17:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
Dear Khandro,
Thank you for your post to me regarding your sunrise debate with Naomi.
I am no Dawkins fan or antagonist hence I have never mentioned him. However your description of him as "a clown" demeans you, not him.
As regards the live or dead state of my brain compared with yours at your sunrise deserves no comment - to avoid insults creeping in, I'll happily accept your assessment of me, whatever that is and whenever.
Please see my recent posts to Naomi and jim as I have referred to you, I think in a friendly and/or amused way.
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Thank you for your post to me regarding your sunrise debate with Naomi.
I am no Dawkins fan or antagonist hence I have never mentioned him. However your description of him as "a clown" demeans you, not him.
As regards the live or dead state of my brain compared with yours at your sunrise deserves no comment - to avoid insults creeping in, I'll happily accept your assessment of me, whatever that is and whenever.
Please see my recent posts to Naomi and jim as I have referred to you, I think in a friendly and/or amused way.
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
LG; 'An Appetite For Wonder The Making of a Scientist' Have you read it? cor blimey!
jomifl; I'm not sure why you are directing your question about the edge of the visible universe at me, and, as a chemist, why do you think your view on the cosmos has any special validity beyond that of anyone else?
naomi; Yes, he said it in a TV interview.
SIQ; //"beautiful and glorious" as though these were real and absolute entities.// They certainly are to most of humanity, do you wish to exclude yourself?
jomifl; I'm not sure why you are directing your question about the edge of the visible universe at me, and, as a chemist, why do you think your view on the cosmos has any special validity beyond that of anyone else?
naomi; Yes, he said it in a TV interview.
SIQ; //"beautiful and glorious" as though these were real and absolute entities.// They certainly are to most of humanity, do you wish to exclude yourself?
Khandro,
Beautiful and glorious are adjectives not nouns - understand english grammar? Adjectives are not entities they describe things.
They are simply descriptions of what we see, peceive or hold an opinion about. These opinions can vary from person to person without rudeness or venomous bittterness.
What did you think of the Tracey Emin's "unmade bed" as art? Sorry if I spelt her name wrong but I don't trawl around quotation compendia or google for my answers or questions like certain people.
I bet you will not answer my question on the unmade bed - it's too awkward compared to your sunrise!
I do not wish to exclude myself from humanity although with you allegedly in it, it does make me think.
Your comment to LG appears rude to me, given his wisdom.
I am not aware of jomifl claiming that his views on the cosmos has any special validity beyond anyone else. Jomifl's another wise person so you simply re-write what you wish he had said.
You have correctly gone silent on Naomi. The cleverest thing you have done so far - she always makes mincemeat of your contentions!
Please stop being rude and duplicitous in twisting peoples' words.
It is most unbecoming and fortunately rare on the AB.
SIQ.
Beautiful and glorious are adjectives not nouns - understand english grammar? Adjectives are not entities they describe things.
They are simply descriptions of what we see, peceive or hold an opinion about. These opinions can vary from person to person without rudeness or venomous bittterness.
What did you think of the Tracey Emin's "unmade bed" as art? Sorry if I spelt her name wrong but I don't trawl around quotation compendia or google for my answers or questions like certain people.
I bet you will not answer my question on the unmade bed - it's too awkward compared to your sunrise!
I do not wish to exclude myself from humanity although with you allegedly in it, it does make me think.
Your comment to LG appears rude to me, given his wisdom.
I am not aware of jomifl claiming that his views on the cosmos has any special validity beyond anyone else. Jomifl's another wise person so you simply re-write what you wish he had said.
You have correctly gone silent on Naomi. The cleverest thing you have done so far - she always makes mincemeat of your contentions!
Please stop being rude and duplicitous in twisting peoples' words.
It is most unbecoming and fortunately rare on the AB.
SIQ.
SIQ; Re, Tracy Emin's bed. I think jomifl is a far superior artist, in fact I want him to enter for next year's Turner prize, see;
http://
And, why should my dislike of of Dawkins show rudeness to LG?
jomifl; Sorry, but I seemed to have gathered along the way that your specialisation was chemistry. I still don't know why you are asking me about outer space though.
http://
And, why should my dislike of of Dawkins show rudeness to LG?
jomifl; Sorry, but I seemed to have gathered along the way that your specialisation was chemistry. I still don't know why you are asking me about outer space though.
Dear Khandro,
Re LG: I misread your statement "Have you read it? cor blimey!" as reflecting on LG's reading of books. Please accept my sincere apologies.
I'm afraid I am beginning to read many of your posts as insulting to someone or other. I wonder why.
I found Tracy Emin's unmade bed "beautiful and glorious" lol.
I am not bothering with your hyperlink as I don't want to pursue this any further.
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
Re LG: I misread your statement "Have you read it? cor blimey!" as reflecting on LG's reading of books. Please accept my sincere apologies.
I'm afraid I am beginning to read many of your posts as insulting to someone or other. I wonder why.
I found Tracy Emin's unmade bed "beautiful and glorious" lol.
I am not bothering with your hyperlink as I don't want to pursue this any further.
Kind Regards,
SIQ.
/ I still don't know why you are asking me about outer space though. /
You stated that it wasn't possible to observe something without the observation affecting it. I suggested that it was, since we can observe events at the edge of the visible universe that cannot be affected by us since nothing we did could possibly reach them. That simple really. It is all very well coming out with profound sounding quotes but you do need to understand their implications too and consider their veracity.
You stated that it wasn't possible to observe something without the observation affecting it. I suggested that it was, since we can observe events at the edge of the visible universe that cannot be affected by us since nothing we did could possibly reach them. That simple really. It is all very well coming out with profound sounding quotes but you do need to understand their implications too and consider their veracity.
jomifl; I didn't say that at all, please see my post; page 19, 11:05 8th Dec.
What I'm attempting to say with your second reference is it is said, that the last scientist to know all there was to know about contemporary science was Isaac newton, since then science has become more and more divided into specialisms until today when one branch of science is very divorced in kind from another, and the view of a chemist (I've apologised for that) has no special validity on matters of say, astro-physics.
What I'm attempting to say with your second reference is it is said, that the last scientist to know all there was to know about contemporary science was Isaac newton, since then science has become more and more divided into specialisms until today when one branch of science is very divorced in kind from another, and the view of a chemist (I've apologised for that) has no special validity on matters of say, astro-physics.
Mendel had some scientific training so can hardly be called an amateur. Today most of the "amateur" contribution to Science seems to be in the junk mail a lot of academics get from pseudomathematicians claiming to have discovered a proof to the unprovable or that "Einstein was wrong", or other assorted nonsense. I felt honoured to have received my first such piece of tripe the other week, someone who had discovered a "Theory of Everything" that basically boiled down to "God is Love", or the like.
Anyway that's a distraction, but while amateurs have had an important contribution to make to the field of Science, their impact is less and less significant these days. The sheer volume and scope of professional scientific research means both that you need to turn to the experts for the best understanding of a subject, and in many fields there is little room for amateurs to make a contribution that hasn't been considered or done already.
Finally, whilst it's true that no single Scientist can be said to know even a fraction of the subject, it's also true that the different fields aren't quite so divorced from each other as all that. The basic skills in understanding are probably fairly Universal: a good ability to understand maths and technical language. With the appropriate background reading, most Scientists would at least be able to follow the arguments of research from outside their field -- and occasionally are able to contribute. This is at least many times more likely to happen than for someone with no previous scientific background.
Anyway that's a distraction, but while amateurs have had an important contribution to make to the field of Science, their impact is less and less significant these days. The sheer volume and scope of professional scientific research means both that you need to turn to the experts for the best understanding of a subject, and in many fields there is little room for amateurs to make a contribution that hasn't been considered or done already.
Finally, whilst it's true that no single Scientist can be said to know even a fraction of the subject, it's also true that the different fields aren't quite so divorced from each other as all that. The basic skills in understanding are probably fairly Universal: a good ability to understand maths and technical language. With the appropriate background reading, most Scientists would at least be able to follow the arguments of research from outside their field -- and occasionally are able to contribute. This is at least many times more likely to happen than for someone with no previous scientific background.
jim; //Mendel had some scientific training so can hardly be called an amateur.//
The first person I thought of - but his training was, before coming a monk, in philosophy and theology - no science, and his research was in botany, a subject in which he had no training at all.
jomifl; //All scientists were amateurs then.//. Gregor Mendel: b. 1822, d. 1884. Really?
The first person I thought of - but his training was, before coming a monk, in philosophy and theology - no science, and his research was in botany, a subject in which he had no training at all.
jomifl; //All scientists were amateurs then.//. Gregor Mendel: b. 1822, d. 1884. Really?
