Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Technically speaking, proteins do not reproduce themselves.

So you poo pooed the Modelling efforts at STony Brook and I gues you still dont understand the catalysis provided by ribozymes.

ANYWAY, youre stuck on Today;s world.
The topic I was dwelling on was the start up pf life and subsequent evolution having to ait for chemical replicaion. As I stated at the outset. You need to look at the original cell membranes of chemical fossils.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Quote:

Technically speaking, proteins do not reproduce themselves.

It's funny how evolution has been proven. How are proteins produced?
Proteins are produced by stringing amino acids together in the order specified by messenger RNA strands that were transcribed from DNA in the cell nucleus.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

EG proteins fold and can achive some stability based o enviiiiironmental n pH /REDOX/ sidechain groups, existence of N=H instad of NH3 .(imine v amine)

Its YOU guys that need to read microbio and biochem.

I guess youre convinced that your god is busy addressing evolution by changing the environments in which the pre aminos exist.

You guys make a lovely cabal based on Bibilcal BS , have at it. Ive gotta plow snow .

Quote:

So you poo pooed the Modelling efforts at STony Brook and I gues you still dont understand the catalysis provided by ribozymes.

It appears that you are saying the environment is the main system running here with biological evolution and climates operating as integrated subsystems, with subsystems like those Modeled by STony Brook describing the catalysis provided by ribozymes operating as subsytems inside of biology etc. etc... Looks like a lot of complex systems interdependently embedded in other complex systems.

Quote:

ANYWAY, youre stuck on Today;s world.
The topic I was dwelling on was the start up pf life and subsequent evolution having to ait for chemical replicaion. As I stated at the outset. You need to look at the original cell membranes of chemical fossils.

How is the amount of articles anybody reads about the topic going to have anything to do with how well you can rationally articulate the argument provided by the article? Could you sum it up?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I gave you my arguments off line at your request. You want a re-do in public?

I shouldn’t ask. You always switch the subject from biology to my character flaws or your perceptions of my theology. It gets old.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Proteins are produced by stringing amino acids together in the order specified by messenger RNA strands that were transcribed from DNA in the cell nucleus.

Did you get that from my protein arguments against abiogenesis? It was there.

And it’s correct of course. But it does not contradict my statement that proteins do not reproduce themselves. In fact it proves it. Maybe that was your point?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

you seem to fail in addressing the subject. As was said in the entire history of these threads.There is NO evidence that any of the amides amines imides quinones, or nucleotides even existed at the time life was initiated on earth(around 3.9 Billion yars ago).This is a basis of a"preprotein" metabolism first world.
We have ample evidence of simple life (all C12 based, around 3.9 BY , an maybe erlier by evidence in localied deposits) We really dont know how life initiated but its not thought that the RNA "world" was an exclusive but a progressive process in that theres no clear evience of purines and pyrimidines not until at last a hallf billion years or more after life actually began.(This is based on occurence of stromatolites and the beginning of oxygenation)

We know that from structures and layers of organic polymers that comprise a cell all life just maybe had to wait a half billion years until it actually began "bookkeeping" . I know that youre entire worldview is based on a theistic source, but science has gone past what chemical kick started it and is considering several different reasonable models. I ussed to be an RNA firster but more dta on the pucity or the purines ond pyrimidines begn some metier debates among my more deeply involved collegues .

The "Metabolism First" hypothesis is based upon work at Cold Harbor and byseveral experiments in the formation of cell membrane polymers in an early arth atmosphere by J Dworkin. Bernstein and Sanford did several expeiments that displayed that , undercondition of early atmosphere, most PAH and polymers displayed chirality (they form helixes and double helixes.
Such habit of chemicals were found also in the Merchesoon mteorite which contains several PAHs and glycine and Thymine.
A "partial" pnspermia is also a possibile candidate.
.
As for evolution (a totally separate subject)
You seem to want to press an ID worldview. That involves the selective search for evidence to support your pre selected beliefs. Here , the combined sciences of biology, paleontology, geology, mineralogy(Bob Hazens analyses of the "evolution "of complex chemicals in the Hadean Earth) dont collectivelysupport you (Unless of course you believe that the entire system that defines our universe i under detailed control by your intelligent being, then I suppose weve got waay more work to do to even come up with xplantions that deserve consideration of an ID world.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

How is the amount of articles anybody reads about the topic going to have anything to do with how well you can rationally articulate the argument provided by the article? Could you sum it up?

SUMMARY: Youd be able to articulate it better

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I know that youre entire worldview is based on a theistic source

There he goes again, knew I shouldn’t have asked

But what do you say about what I’ve actually said? Any errors stick out for you, not counting my conclusion of course, but what about the argument? And please, no more cut 'n paste. Your own typo riddled riffs are one of your more lovable traits.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

my cut n pste is jut as valid as your wiki clips. Ive been collecting my comments and borrowing from others to compile a self-constructed seriesof lines of evidence.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Tell me Im not right about your worldview. Youve been running atwo sided discussion through very thrad Ive seen you participate in (except for car species)
You really arent interested in doing a bit of homework , youre only trying to make an argument aGAINST lifes arrival without any base level evidence. BTW, remember waay bck. It was Set who stated that word for word, all mens of lifes appearance is ABIOGNESIS.

The metabolism first hypothesis does state what you espouse, it looks at the development of the chemical components of a whole boatload of Amino acids from the purines and pyrimidines (bsides our own holy 20).

vidence as to when things were first noted as fossil chemicals are facts , and worthy of consideration of realistic mechanisms. Your argument is more based on the "Creation" of DNA and then "back create" its components. All real experiments now are looking at possible chemical and energy "labs" where components of life hve arisen from simplest to most like what we have today.

You say that these evidence cant exist and I say look at what thyeve found in chondritic meteorites.

ID is just scientific "poofism"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

my cut n pste is jut as valid as your wiki clips

There were no wiki clips in my arguments. Those were 100% my words.
Although wiki could be used to verify the various facts cited in them if you doubted.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Tell me Im not right about your worldview.

You are not even close.

.

Quote:

Youve been running atwo sided discussion through very thrad Ive seen you participate in

I assume you are referring to my posts on theological matters. Although it is possible there may be some relationship, I have made no claim of who is responsible for biological life, only that the theory you embrace is insufficient.

Quote:

youre only trying to make an argument aGAINST lifes arrival without any base level evidence.

This is not accurate, I definitely believe that 'life' showed up here, my point is that no 'natural' cause identified so far can account for it.

Quote:

BTW, remember waay bck. It was Set who stated that word for word, all mens of lifes appearance is ABIOGNESIS.

I remember it well. And if he were to agree that 'design' is among the factors in that appearance, we’d have no disagreement.

Quote:

vidence as to when things were first noted as fossil chemicals are facts , and worthy of consideration of realistic mechanisms.

My argument was a consideration of those mechanisms. I find them insufficient as do many scientists in the field.

Quote:

All real experiments now are looking at possible chemical and energy "labs" where components of life hve arisen from simplest to most like what we have today.

Let them continue. So far they have failed to make the leap from chemistry to life.

Quote:

You say that these evidence cant exist and I say look at what thyeve found in chondritic meteorites.

You keep beating the drum about how we find the chemical 'building blocks of life' from both terrestrial and ET sources and yet I have never questioned that.

Quote:

ID is just scientific "poofism"

I maintain that it is your theory that is “poofism”. It is you that believe that a pile of building blocks will self assemble into a city if you wait long enough. It’s not even 'scientific' poofism.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

BS you posted a whole batch of wikis just last week an you still left the parenthetical footnotes. My last weeks clip to the other contributor was from sources from which I compiled data over the last 20 years and have also used as references in my own papers and reports.
Usually in science we like to reference what the literature is discussing. We try not to make believe that we are the only authors of evidence.

You wont ever admit that your base arguments are direct from Discovery Institute but we know better eh?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I find them insufficient as do many scientists in the field.

when you look at the world of evidence from the Isua Formation, Canadian Shield, And Flinders Hills, we see tht "life" didnt jut occur as AN event. It left evidence of "pockets of tril" , some a few hundred million yers apart, yet all associated with stratigraphic deposits that were post "major bombardment" time and located within salty and clay thermals . Yet all of these were void of key compounds that make the"information first" hypothesis only one of many hypotheses uner consideration.
Remember life didnt begin last Tuesday. It struggled and failed, finally
it established itself in several possible modes.
The fact that "many scientists" support a theistic model kind of an incredulous base for studies.

Most scientit I know who are religiou, look to their deity as a being transcendent of the working of the world. I think, if you relly think more carefully youd agree that too many disciplines underpin a natural origin and evolution of all life on earth.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You wont ever admit that your base arguments are direct from Discovery Institute but we know better eh?

They aren’t, but why should it matter to anyone where they came from? The Nazis were first to build rockets with the potential for space flight. Does that mean their science was wrong?

Address the ******* argument.

My apologies to Discovery Institute for comparing them to Nazis, farmer insists on characterizing them as such so I had no choice.

I never denied using wiki at times. But not for the text in my protein argument.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Ive noticed that Dr Behe, the senior scientist involved in the genetics of ID has taken his sermons down a few notches by fully accepting the entire bag of discoveries about evolution. He still maintains a belief in a designer but accept all the fossil data regarding macro evolution and natural selection and neutral hypotheses ( I suppose a lot has to do with what weve learned recently about how covid mutation responds to environmental conditions)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

This is the last thing I read about Dr. Behe. It does not match the impression you are trying to peddle. But he does discuss the emotional problems you have with him.

Dr. Behe Quote:

Quote:

My recent spat with National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson reminded me that many people are not psychologically prepared to consider the evidence about biological origins. The exchange was instructive, not about science but about human emotions. Pressing him on his dismissal of intelligent design as “daft rube-bait,” I showed Williamson that among conservatives like himself there’s ample precedent for independently evaluating materialist theories like Darwinism. William F. Buckley Jr., National Review’s founder, for one, was a proponent of intelligent design. With that “permission” in hand, so you’d think, the interested layman should feel entitled to weigh the work of scientists who challenge evolutionary orthodoxy and arrive at his own conclusions.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

So he had a debate with kevin Williamson. Where did I say that Behe dropped his belief in ID (Hed be quickly out of his job at iscovery were he to do that, they require fealty)
What I clearly stated was that Behe has amended many of his views on evolution, common ancestry etc.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

PS, I read "Darwin Devolves" and I stick with my comment apparently you only read the Discovery Institutes versions eh?

1 Reply

Another good description of what proteins do, and how they are made, and more. Farmer thinks these are just cartoons, but they accurately illustrate an overview of the last sixty years of molecular biology research.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

0 Replies

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know