12
   

International Scientific Conference Deems Evolution A "Hoax"

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 05:09 pm
@Leadfoot,
Just because you FEEL that I dhould see things in the way youve predicted and then gave you some other things to think about, doesnt mean that I dont take in what you said.
Oft times the way we say things is not the authors right to determine meaning. Its the readers.

Ive been a follower of her endosymbiosis maybe 20 years before you even read anything by Wose or Mayr.


The more we become familiar with the bookshelves about biology, the more that (I think) that angenesis and ID are wholly without clothes.

PLease read Ward;s book on Lamarck, its a little gem of wisdom

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2020 05:32 pm
@farmerman,
Just got done with a hunka punkin pie and it dawned on me that Margulis wasnt really an HIS/Syphyllis pusher she was aways misunderstood.

BUT, on the other hand, she DID deny 9-11 and was constantly being shot down for her Gaia hypothesis. (Thatswhere a misundertanding about climate "Denialism" came from)

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2020 05:01 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Oft times the way we say things is not the authors right to determine meaning. Its the readers.

Oh.

I just got confused when you refuted my last argument by repeating it.
Maybe you’re just mirroring me.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2020 07:18 am
@Leadfoot,
argue the issue , please quit making it an exercise in polemics.
I know your beliefs and have stated over and over, that your beliefs dont constitute valid scientific findings.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2020 08:57 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
argue the issue , please quit making it an exercise in polemics.
I know your beliefs and have stated over and over, that your beliefs dont constitute valid scientific findings.

Do I have the right to determine the meaning of everything you say?

Game on then.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2020 12:23 pm
@Leadfoot,
certainly. Feel free.

The only rules should be that evidence shoulld be involved K?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2020 04:22 am
@farmerman,
And we still get to define what the other really means? You can’t be serious.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2020 05:16 am
@Leadfoot,
I have no problem with your cricticism. After all we both know where the other is coming from, we dont need to hide anything .
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2020 10:53 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
After all we both know where the other is coming from, we dont need to hide anything .
True, You don’t hide it; you are actually proud of your prejudice. It is your right to hold it if you want.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2020 11:53 am
@Leadfoot,
I only support that which can be evidenced. You support things that can be "poetically introduced"
Like
"Life is too complex to have arisen by chance and evolution"

You seem to rely on truth to that and you always fail to present associated evidence.

As far as "My prejudice", I resent your use of terms when you know that a prejudice is a judgement made without the benefit of facts or knowledge.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2020 04:12 pm
@farmerman,
And I don’t appreciate it when you misrepresent my argument.
You are free to disagree with my conclusion, but I can back up every biological fact in the argument from reputable third parties.

Just for the record, here is my argument. Again. I’m not sure it’s ‘poetic' but I’ll take the compliment.


The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual references to proteins. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I use the term 'machine' because of its interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that it is very specific and functional.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab is as close to creating life as we have come, even though amino acids can potentially form naturally. This is why one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins are made of only 20 of them and all are left handed. This creates a problem for 'naturally occurring' proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

Each protein is a very specifically ordered chain of amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a protein by accident is impossible, in spite of its complexity.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2020 06:47 am
@Leadfoot,
Ill get to you this PM .Im on a project site and will be driiving back this afternoon.
My only comment is that , although your facts are mostly right (ith the exception that RNA is half of a DNA moolecule). Your own views are rather incomplete.

Life
Encapsulates its own structure

Life metabolizes

Life replicates

Life evolves
Your above statement of life only focuses on one of its above component "tasks"

We have fossil evidence (both chemical and physical) of how life ascending was of a quite different chemistry than we have now.
We also see same amino acids in the spectral makups of stars all over the galaxy and wider universe.
Ill be back this PM sometime.



Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2020 07:32 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
My only comment is that , although your facts are mostly right (ith the exception that RNA is half of a DNA moolecule). Your own views are rather incomplete.

Life
Encapsulates its own structure

Life metabolizes

Life replicates

Life evolves
Your above statement of life only focuses on one of its above component "tasks"
Exactly, my statement was the “simplest possible explanation” for why life could not have been accidental, written for readers with no knowledge of biology or arcane terminology. Are you going to make the argument that more complexity makes it more likely to happen?

Regarding 'RNA being half of a DNA strand'. Technically you are correct, DNA does not form naturally from RNA, which is a major problem for the 'RNA World' hypothesis.

But what I was trying to get at is that both halves of DNA contain the same information. That's why DNA doesn’t lose any information during the process of making messenger RNA in the nucleus. Half of DNA is just the complement of the other half, so it’s 'easy' to rebuild DNA from RNA (assuming you have that incredible protein machine that does it in the cell). Even in a modern lab it’s hard and takes a skilled molecular biologist to do it.

I look forward to your return.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2020 03:36 pm
@Leadfoot,
Ledfoot wrote:
But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

Your ID is just as improbable.

So, you'd rather place your bet on your ID. Understood.

Ledfoot wrote:

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible.

Your argument of "accidental life" is a straw man argument seeing as no one you're arguing against here is arguing that life is accidental.

Your ID is just as virtually impossible, however much you'd prefer to place your bet on it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2020 03:51 pm
@Leadfoot,

Well, got caught in the damn snow last night and had to stay over nar OIL CITY Pa.

TO THE POINT.

No, your explanation is of one who is impressed by just one aspect of life replication, you are only discussing that left handed amino acids only bond with right handed sugars to form the natural helices that ALL proteins demonstrate. (The formation of which occurs non biologically in hydrothermal vents called "Black Smokers")
I think youre focusing with a fine lens about proteins and not asking some very important questions like "did earliest life on earth even replicate?"
What about fatty acids or alpha hydroxy acids
polymer s

IF I CAN SHOW YOU SOME EVIDENCE THAT displays how many of these prebiotic chemicals can be formed and assembled in nature will you read some of the papers??

Itll take me a couple days to gather up what Ive got. I think, if you say that youre just interested in the science, you may be somewhat shaken about ID.

I will limit my discussions to physical and "Chemical" fossils.


K?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2020 03:57 pm
@Leadfoot,
RNA has several different sugars and contains uracyl instead of thymine which results in a whole batch of triplet functional groups in RNA that dont occur in DNA.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2020 06:14 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
RNA has several different sugars and contains uracyl instead of thymine which results in a whole batch of triplet functional groups in RNA that dont occur in DNA.
This is another time I have to say 'True, true, but irrelevant'.

To illustrate, it is as if when I write anything to you, I will always substitute '*' for the letter 'e'. As long as we both know this, no meaning or information will be lost or changed in the message.

no m*aning or information will b* lost or chang*d in th* m*ssag*.

The problem is that you apparently do not believe there is any information in RNA to begin with. I cannot tell you how gobsmacked I was the first time you said that.

More tomorrow, I’m bushed from a day working on airplanes.
Glad you made it back.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2020 06:29 pm
@Leadfoot,
thts BS , thres a whole passwl f amino acids that are only RNA an a similar in DNA.

Its more Like

1 there are Reeses peanut butter cups


2 and there is saurkraut.

YOU REALLY need to pick up some college level molecular Biology texts and a biochemistry lab manual and read .

Just because you say something is "irrelevant" doesnt make it so .


Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2020 05:37 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
thts BS , thres a whole passwl f amino acids that are only RNA an a similar in DNA.

Damn, for a minute there I thought we were actually going to have a discussion.

Maybe later when you are less emotional.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2020 06:41 am
@Leadfoot,
you assrt things , of which you are entirely convinced (I think that you think more computer and less chemistry), but youre just flat wrong. If I seem livid that you aint "getting it" , its the ol chemistry teacher in me trying to get something across.

Just because my spelling gets sucky at times , its usually because Im typing at late hours,Im really not pissed off at anything. Ive been watching Thomas Johnson furniture repair on You Tube while I type. Hes really a miracle man at fixing busted antique wood.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 08:27:58