Questions For Which Evolutionists Have No Answers

Atta boy spendi.

Not a single syllable in response to what set wrote.

Joe(suspicions confirmed)Nation

Joe(it's taken you pretty long)Nation, We have known for some time now that spendi doesn't always connect the dots from one post to another - or even in his own posts. His compositions range from "somewhat insightful to totally confused." That's what makes spendi so endearing.

i have absolutely no idea what the hell he said.

Don't let that bother you, he has no idea, either, and it never bothers him.

spendi:

Hey- they've got Gunga in their sights again.

They love it.

A pyramid of tin cans at three feet with pillows and the prize worth half the ticket price and a doxie who knows no better.

Wink,wink!

This is a good example of spendi's nonsensical moments when only he seems to enjoy what he writes.

Anybody who thinks he understands what Settin' Aah-aah wrote about prions etc is having himself on for the purpose of boosting his self-esteem in his own eyes.
There's no way anyone can understand it, not even Settin' himself, because it is incoherent and all made out of bits from here there and everywhere.

Let us have your considered response then lads. It's a bit of a cop out just responding to my response which I stand by. Actually, it struck me as a "white-coat" job.

Set, the Jeff Bada model you speak of is a current "flavor of the month" for biogenesis but in all cases and models , we can see gobs of paleo data that is "consistent" with the timing of the appearance of life, we can track th earths paleo stratigraphy (we see the rise of oxides consistent with the appaearnces of stromatolites and other cyans). However, weve not yet been able to break the code of how polymerization againsts an energy gradient can be accomplished. We are certain that peptide linkage, polymerization, all aided by surface chemistry reactions are the key. The missing steps are that nature seems hell bent on busting down these necessary long fatty acid bio- polymers, not building them up.

One day well find a key, but that day isnt tantalizingly close yet.

Ive got a few colleagues who work in the Craig Venter association and theyve been insisting that all life has started with the very simplest improbable reactions with a "minimum of moving parts' and all else has grown from that. Well ole Craig, while mining extremophiles may be the one who breaks the code and provides the clues .

My early ideas of the "Gibbsian" relationships between surface reactions of the phosphoric fatty acids and "leafy green" silicates like smectites and surface reactions of Iron phosphoric fatty acids may be closer to realitythan actual formation of specific bio-molecules.We need that some reality based model be presented ( the chemicals must be naturally formed in hot basic water in low oxygen environments) . Venters ideas are preciely that , clay minerals set up surface atractions and reactions to exchange hydroxyls and protons and somewhere, sometime, one of those molecules starts using a cell phone.
All in all, however, sadly we arent really very close close(No matter how some web sites spin it). Until theres a huge potential payback in applied biotech, I dont think that theres going to be a rocket pace in the unequivocal understandings of lifes origins. Course thats just me, I listen to colleagues kvetching all the time about lack of funding yet everyone in the media is calling wanting an answer yesterday.

I found the extremophiles to be a very exciting development, precisely because they suggest that the more "benign" models aren't necessarily the only models which can account for the rise of life. The undersea vent extremophiles and the many extremophiles in Yellowstone which live not only in extremely hot water, but what might previously have been thought of as chemically hostile environments say it ain't necessarily so in regard to the earlier speculation about what constituted optimal conditions for the formation of replicating molecules which could lead to "life." I think the Yellowstone finds are particularly interesting because you have heat, what once was thought of as chemically hostile environments, and significantly (see below), the clays. There is a good, short article on extremophiles in Yellowstone here.

Additionally, extremophiles which have been found in lakes and rivers in Antarctica, clearly demonstrating that the possible range of temperatures (never mind the chemical environment) is far greater than previously thought. There is a good, short article on extremophiles in Ace Lake, Antarctica here.

Finally, extremophiles have been found in toxic waste dumps, showing that life can survive much more chemically harsh environments than would have been thought even a few decades ago. There is a good, brief article on extremophiles here. The remaining question, as you note, is what trips the trigger from mere chemical replication to what one might call life (i.e., metabolism, reproduction, adaptation through internal change). The extremophiles are excitingly suggestive, but they don't prove that life can originate in such environments, but only survive there. As yet, we can't say if life can originate in extreme environments, but only that life can adapt to them once established. Nevertheless, the discovery and study of extremophiles does suggest that life is possible in a much greater range of environments than had previously been assumed.

I find the Antarctic extremophiles very suggestive for several reasons. The early sun was not as "bright" billions of years ago as is the case today, and the effect of greenhouse gases would not have been as great. Although there is evidence to as far back as 2.7 byra that there were high CO2 levels, we don't know for certain if that was the case 4 byra. We also cannot be certain what the methane levels were in the earliest days of the planet. Extremophiles suggest that protein formation might have taken place in the earliest, much hotter conditions when the earth first formed and was cooling. But it cooled, very likely, to a much lower temperature than is now the average, so even if such proteins formed in the initial hot environment, could they have survived the subsequent cold? The Antarctic extremophiles suggest that they might, and more significantly, the Antarctic extremophiles are methanogens, and might have been (if present) an important source of greenhouse gas in the early life of the planet.



I once mentioned to you an article i'd read in Scientific American in the early 70s about the formation and replication of long protein chains in clay tubes. To me, that was significant because it would provide protection in potentially hostile environments for protein chain formation, as well as providing some protection from cosmic radiation. I've been able to follow a good deal of the speculation precisely because the one science i always did well in and understood was chemistry. Sadly, i do not of course retain the level of knowledge and understanding that i did while i was still at university--but i had a good foundation in high school and university, and am not intimidated by technical explanations, which i can, eventually (if not too lazy) understand.



I'm not dismayed that we aren't close to the answers. It would have been far more exciting to have lived and sailed the seas in the age of discovery than simply to read about it now, centuries later. No useful answers may be found in my lifetime, but that doesn't lessen my excitement or enthusiasm. Columbus did his first expedition on a shoestring, Ferdinand and Isabella had just won a long and expensive war, and had a "take it or leave it" attitude. People would be appalled if they could see a realistic recreation of Santa Clara (nicknamed Pinta by the sailors), and consider that dozens of men lived on that little cockleshell for months on a voyage of more three thousand miles, truly sailing off into the unknown. The had no quarters, and slept wherever they could find space, had one cooked meal a day, and at other times, gnawed on ship's biscuit, so long as they weren't scurvy and losing their teeth. Certainly, many of them would not even have been aware that they lived in the dawning decades of a great age which would alter the human world as no other age, even the era of the Mongol hordes, had ever done.

Prince Henry the Navigator sent his little ships out to crawl down the African coast, and although his contribution has been exagerated and glamorized, it remains true that after failing as a military commander (the Moors made mincemeat of the Portugese), he concentrated on exploration, which yeilded handsome profits, and allowed him continue. This all took place before Columbus--Henry was born almost a century before Columbus set out. Five years after Columbus returned from his first voyage (and, significantly he first arrived in the Portuguese Azores on his return, and then made landfall in Europe at Lisbon), Vasco de Gama made his crucial voyage. Like all the previous Portugese expeditions, he hugged the African coast, until he secured an Arab navigator after he learned at Malindi on the east African coast that the Arabs traded with India from African ports. From the time he reached the Cape of Good Hope and turned east and then north, he travelled almost as far up the east African coast as all the other Portuguese navigators had done in 80 years of crawling down the west coast. But at Malindi, he saw an opportunity and took it; no doubt inspired by Columbus' bold voyage, and with his Arab navigator, he boldly struck out across the rough and stormy seas of the Indian Ocean, convinced by local accounts of the Monsoon, that he could successfully sail out of sight of land and reach India. His success lead to the great age of exploration to the east, which made the Portuguese, and later the Dutch and the English, wealthy and powerful out of all proportion to the size and influence of those nations within Europe.

We live in an equally exciting age. Prince Henry, and those he bankrolled for their voyages, moved forward with "baby steps" down the African coast, until enough knowledge and expertise were accumulated for da Gama to take his gamble, which paid off beyond the most sanguine expectations of anyone in Europe. The exploration of the life sciences by today's scientists may be fated to be the same kind of slow, halting advance into a realm of ignorance, the same kind of voyage into an unknown sea. But despite small rewards, and frequent failures and setbacks, the possibility is great that some day, some scientist or group of scientists will be able to use the knowledge which has been accumulated to strike out on their own voyage into the unknown, with the same potential of fabulous discovery and great returns.

It doesn't bother me that we may live at the very beginning of the initially slow and often frustrating and mystifying journey into this great unknown. Unlike so many of the companions of Columbus or da Gama, we know that we live in such an exciting and important "age of discovery." It is a time worth living in, and my excitement, at least, is very real.

fm-

Exactly who is this "we" you mentioned a lot in the post above Settin (I defy anybody to follow this) Aah-aah's screed of jabbering.

Are we who think it's all a magical thing included or is it just those who think we are well-evolved lumps of ****. Space **** notwithstanding. The ones who think we are well-evolved lumps of **** would have to set about proving we are actually just that in order to maintain their self respect. At least then they could claim equality. And with a Tierra-del-Fuegan of Darwin's day.

Socialising with those who think we are magical creatures, Christian man more so by some distance, must be a bit hard to take for those who think we are a well-evolved lump of ****. I daresay they might get the impression that we are looking down on them. Which is how to look at any **** never mind some well-evolved stuff.

Weave your winds and we, my we, will be content to have the winds woven for us. You have some way to go to convince me.

When are you going to make a car run off ditch-water? That's what the lads in the pub want to know. They reckon ditch-water can't be taxed. They don't want to know that their darling infant is going to get water on the brain between her 42nd and 44th birthday. Plus a load of other stuff.

The experts can't even figure out what to do with this latest newfound gizmo they have turned up in the multi-billion dollar Genome project. "It raises a number of ethical questions" they are saying.

"What's one of them?" asks the bemused anti-IDer.

Exactly, the reason to arise in the morning has a lot to do with what can be found out this day. Im ever so glad to have been part of the quantitation of "New Global Tectonics: as it was called in the 70's, and now to be able to catch, first hand, some of the newest discoveries that advance many aspects of science and also tumble down the walls of once sacred institutions.

Ive just read that the DNA analyses of chicken bones in Chilean middens, suggest that a wave of Polynesian settlement in Souith America predated the EUropeans by hundreds of years. (And the date of hundreds may be sunject to revision since the only contextual evidence they have is the chrono-correlation of the midden with adjoining activity that was at least "pre-contact" as a youngest date. They havent been able to esatblish the oldest yet.

Nevertheless, the point is that from your initial abiogenesis statement, my followup 9which admits to what we DONT know), we can expect the usual suspects to begin some heel nipping as if the issue is settled science.

.

Spendi, do you have trouble arising each day? There seems to be an air of hopelesness about you.
PS, was there a question in there or was it your recitation of the daily curmudgeon office? I cant wait for vespers.

Ta.

That kind of thing is fascinatin' stuff. There was a program on the Canadian Learning Television channel the other night, the beginning of which i missed. However, it soon dawned on me that they were doing a "dramatization" of what a Solutrean migration might have entailed. They theorized a single small band arriving by the "ice bridge," and their trials and tribulations as they tried to make their way to Sin City in Virginia Beach. It was interspersed with interviews with contemporary scientists, including an ethnologist, a paeleontologist and a geneticist--undoubtedly to give that flashy patina of scientific credibility. But, all seriousness aside, it was very entertaining, and the interviews with the scientists taught me a few things which i did not know.

For example, the ethnologist and paeleontologist discussed spear point caches. You know about the pressure flake method the Solutreans used, the so-called "Clovis points." Well, these caches contain several spear points, which are Huge--some as long as a foot long. All of them are too large (in comparison to their thickness--they are very thin) to be useful as spear points--they would break if you tried to drive them into an animal hide. They also contain large traces of natural pigment powders, such as iron oxide and that other, yellow one. The caches are only found near the east coast of North America (so far, i think--i'll have to check web site linked below), and in Europe, specifically in the upper Loire region associated with the Solutreans. The science boy speculates that as the spear points were pragmatically useless items, they were probably ritual items, intended to get "spirit aid" for a hunt. The significance of such burials of otherwise useless spear points is tantalizing. Not only is there the connection between the Solutreans and the "new world," but the Solutreans were not only master tool makers, they were better than almost anyone who came after them in the Stone Ages. I found the evidence of the caches compelling, and the explanation convincing.

The geneticist provided new evidence (new to me, at least) of something which people have been saying for a few years. This is that there are genetic markers in the DNA of Amerindians which is almost unique--the same markers are only found in populations in central western Europe, more inferential evidence of a possible Solutrean migration to North America. What really stunned me was his assertion that these markers are to be found in 25% of Amerindian DNA samples--that's a hell of big figure, especially as the Solutrean culture virtually disappears 15,000 yra, which means if they did come here, they were present in sufficient numbers 12,000 or 11,000 yra to have a profound influence on the DNA of the newly arrived Amerindian bands.

Their main science dude was Bruce Bradley, who, along with several other academic appointments, is senior lecturer in archaeology at the University of Exeter. At his web site (sure he has one, you can see it here), he talks about digs in Texas, and the surprises they found there. I particularly like one passage there:



All in all, i was entertained, and very interested to learn more about "the Solutrean hypothesis." I would also be fascinated to learn about Polynesian migration to South America, which makes sense--Pitcairn Island was settled a very long time ago, roughly 11th century, but abandoned some time around the 15th century. That would dovetail nicely with a pre-Columbian migration to South America. Pitcairn Island is significant, because it's actually closer to South America than it is to Australia, and about the same distance from South America as it is from New Zealand.

We do, indeed, live in exciting times.

Don't waste your time on Spurious, Buddy, i never do. I don't bother to read his tripe. I strongly suspect you of seeking entertainment by troll baiting.

Dammit, am I that obvious?

HAving a series of multi-provenanced invasions has always seemed satifying to me because, while the Selutrean connection to the finely crafted "paleo" points and the STR DNA information that surrounds the Amerinds, Ive always been wondering about the major disconinuities apparent from Monte Verde and Chilean cultures, they dont match up all the way up to the Central American populations. Its almost like the two continents were people from both ends. Also STR studies that Ive seen from Inca and Maya, havealmost root similarities of genetics in common with each other than they do with the N American populations(these show a normal Hardy-Weinberg distribution from statistical data when compared with similar genetic functional groups on similar alleles in Amerind populations)


Thats still heresy now, (and Im no one who's able to have a dog in the fight, However, as an intereseted observer, My gibberish is worth just as much as spendis).

PS, Timber came up with the term "Im a TROOOOLLLL seine"

Heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

You rate Spurious' opinion too highly--how can you even tell he has one?

fm wrote-



Puritans eh? They equate festering in the snuggy-snuggy with hopelessness. They hate pleasure. Imagine what time they'll get us all up for a five-mile run and a cold shower when they come to power.

There was a question actually fm. Are we all well-evolved lumps of **** or not? How does matter go to life and life to mind. We'll leave where matter comes from for now because we know you all know it came from a very convenient big bang a very convenient unimaginably long time ago.

We, that's us, not the we of your earlier post, think that there's a divine spark somewhere in the mix. You have to rule that out of course if we are only well-evolved lumps of ****. Don't you? I'm not familiar with anti-ID logic.

Why does Settin' Aah-aah keep telling us that he doesn't read my posts? Does he think we have bad memories?

Cos 'e's settin' u all straight! Geddit? heheherec.

You've got a very simple choice to make. EITHER

a) All of the energy currently in the universe has existed for all eternity. The first law of thermodynamics has been is one of the most tested in science. You know the one about energy not being created or destroyed.
The subject of matter is somewhat more complicated



But that's talking at the microscopic level. We're talking somewhat bigger.

OR

b)An omnipotent god, has existed for all eternity, and about 6000 years ago decided to speak it all into existence.

And yet there exists brain damaged losers that can accept hypothesis 'b' . The world really is insane.

fm wrote-



Isn't that one of those Oxo cube thingies? Or is it oxtail soup? I can't remember.