Romney Looks Like the Next Pres

Primordial soup + current = life. We're not left with much in the way of primordial soup, but my guess is that it will be proven in my kid's lifetimes. IT'S ALL IN THE RECIPE.

Let me know when your God makes an appearance. I'll have to settle for the cheap seats I suppose. He must really be a racist because he seems to hate those Africans.

 

The real thing is that we need DEMAND, not some fabricated crap about trickle down. In a business, of which I've run a few, we didn't hire people with the hope that we would be more in demand. We added jobs after we had demand, simple.

I help start a company that made product xxx, the founder wanted me to put up $$ money to buy machines to produce many more xxx's. I said, NO. However, I'll go get orders for many xxx's and then I'll front you the money to buy more equipment and hire more people. And, yes, we got the orders, and yes I funded the project. Simple economics.

 

Lol, way to go indeed. Jem derails his own thread with a bunch of innacurate unsupportable red herring bs about origins of life, egged on by creationist dumbwittery. Talk about losers.

 

brass came in here and derailed it with his usually baloney. and I just schooled atticus on the fact there is no proof life evolved from non life... just like I schooled you on it about a year ago.

 

If by schooled you mean that you responded to my post with MY POST and nothing else; then yes, I want my diploma.

 

in an economic downturn...you suffer from a lack of demand for the previous of mix of goods and services...

you must contract from the oversupply.
we had a distorted mis allocated economy due to in part financial tricks, a pegged dollar, purchased politicians, and mis priced real estate lloan insurance from aig and mgic.

there is going to be less demand for financial products if the FED let the markets go to market rates for mortgages.
...

keynes and others prescribed lower taxes... because lower taxes will allow people to invest in new ideas and new companies which will bring new products and services to the market.

We did not know we we needed and internet until al gore invented it (joke) ... we did not know we needed I phones instead of black berries or I pads instead of tablets... not until those products showed up.

Demand can be created by innovative products, ideas and services...
that is how capitalism works.... govt should lower taxes not raise them.

 

for atticus and stu.. this is your schooling...
this a survey of current scientific understanding...
its not "soup plus current." that was 1950s conjecture...
its far more complicated than that.


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

No shit? There's more to it? The crux of the argument is that we lack the ability to replicate those primordial conditions. 3.5B years. It's a lot more palatable a theory than a dude with a white beard and a burning bush. I've seen burning bushes, but none of them talk.

 

Well, that proves it then. There is no God. LOL

Carry on until the end.

 

rcp is as closes as it gets... all inside the margin even the slanted samples.

Rasmussen (Saturday) Romney +3
Gallup (Saturday) Obama +1
Democracy Corps (D) Obama +2
CBS News 8/22 - 8/26 Obama +1
ABC News/Wash Post Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research Obama +2
FOX News 8/19 - 8/21 Romney +1
Resurgent Republic (R) Obama +1