65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 10:29 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
spendi, I'm not shaken up that easily, but your summary only results in big <smiles>. I'm gonna let the other thread participants respond to your list, because I know they can put to rest your idea of what constitutes the "important stuff of life."


Then you can add your customary 'me too'.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 10:40 am
farmerman wrote:
suspendis rantings notwithstanding, the incredulity shouted out by RL, "where are the non DNA life -forms" is a hoot. Ya cant have it multiple ways RL, and besides Miller and Futuyama have postulated life forms with central ligands that are iron, silica, sulfur or phsophorus based. Just because we dont see lots of them on this planet (with the exception of sulfur ligand extremophiles whoese sructures are "sort of" mercaptan based "DNA's' we may be looking for a long time. But I figure that one example is a start .


If this can replicate itself, then it is not what Shapiro was describing, is it?

farmerman wrote:
Ros, I love it when RL only posts certain chunks of a paper and hopes that hell get away with murder of logic.



What nonsense. Why do you think I posted a link to the entire 8 page article and a summary if you think I was trying to hide the author's conclusion?

I want to highlight his ridiculous conclusion. He proposes a dead end, a self generating 'proto-cell' with NO means of replication.

Hello?

farmerman wrote:
Of course , Im still waiting for a decent answer re biogeography and Creation (hopefully evidence driven).


I will be glad to answer any specifics you propose. So tell us, what critter lives in a place that 'only evolution can explain' ?

farmerman wrote:
Im sure RL will try to dodge off by posing some Creationist dodge in orser that we may be diverted


You should know about dodging. You went pages and pages without answering the specific question regarding speciation:

When the first member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with? Or if he can still breed with the 'old species' then he is not a 'new species', is he?[/u][/i]

Do you think you got out of that by proposing a scenario where they are were interbreeding, only to backtrack and pretend you didn't say that?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 11:17 am
Arthur Koestler wrote-

Quote:
The whole idea of a "closed surface" and of the "firm boundaries" of the individual becomes the more nebulous the deeper we descend in the evolutional scale towards the primitive cell colonies, just as the idea of discrete bits of matter dissolves when we approach the atomic level.


He quotes the experiments of Wilson and Child as reported in Emotions and Bodily Changes by H.F. Dunbar (New York 1946).

Quote:
.....crushed the tissues of sponges and hydroids, sifted the cells through bolting cloth, and then observed the behaviour in water. At first independently suspended, they aggregated by settling and centrifuging.

From flat sheets they then rounded up spherically, began to differentiate, and ended up as individuals with characteristic mouth, tentacles, and so forth.


Can you do that with any of the organisms Darwin studied?

As Spengler noted- evolution theory breaks down at those levels of life. Like a lot of Victorian scientists Darwin found what he was looking for.

And there is the theory which says that we carry in our gonads molecules which are unchanged since the beginning of our race and which will go on budding into offspring of unpredictable shape to the end of our race and that that applies to all the creatures Darwin studied.

BTW- I will add another to my list-

9- That the Golden Age of mankind is in the future and not in the past as those cornpone "educated" romantics would have you all think.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 11:35 am
Quote:
I will be glad to answer any specifics you propose. So tell us, what critter lives in a place that 'only evolution can explain' ?

mY SPECIFIC QUESTION Was , WHAT IS IT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT crEATIONISM EXPLAINS OR EVIDENCES? yOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION totally dONT ANSWER only the question you wish but that which has been asked, this isnt a trial but we are asking specidfic questions and youre only dodging about
Quote:
What nonsense. Why do you think I posted a link to the entire 8 page article and a summary if you think I was trying to hide the author's conclusion?
But you only quoted the bits that you wished all to see. I guess you know by now that many people will read the articles and many wont.
Quote:
He proposes a dead end, a self generating 'proto-cell' with NO means of replication.When the first member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with? Or if he can still breed with the 'old species' then he is not a 'new species', is he?
we comprehend differently. Lke winning a lottery, someone always does and the biological brick wall is line"
aklways surmounted, except in your mind.
Quote:
If this can replicate itself, then it is not what Shapiro was describing, is it?
The issue i9s moot , it happens and its not irreducibly complex. Theres no evidence to support that conclusion.
Quote:
I answered that sufficiently that others got it and you tried to miscast what I said. We dont have any examples of a single species that was born and then never made it. The fossil record is replete with only the tons of fossils of species that (as I explained) were statistically variable and "probably" were isolated from others.

In todays speciation examples (galapogos finches of the 20th century, mutated corn smut bacteria etc) we see the production of myriads of variants many of which carry the same sets of variation, so theres really no single new variant that crosses this line .

Even if you were correct and could show us evidence of the single variant theory, wed see that such variants would occur and radiate out from an area of origin no? So then were back to biogeography.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 01:15 pm
farmerman wrote:
mY SPECIFIC QUESTION Was , WHAT IS IT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT crEATIONISM EXPLAINS OR EVIDENCES? yOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION totally


This is not a specific question.

It is a vague 'so, can you prove a negative?' kind of a question.

If you think there is some species that lives in a place that only evolution can explain, then say so.

Otherwise quit throwing out generalities and expecting an encyclopedic response.

I have no interest in cataloguing every species for your pleasure and explaining that each of them lives there because it is there that they find food and shelter. Laughing
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 01:23 pm
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
mY SPECIFIC QUESTION Was , WHAT IS IT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT crEATIONISM EXPLAINS OR EVIDENCES? yOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION totally


This is not a specific question.

It is a vague 'so, can you prove a negative?' kind of a question.

If you think there is some species that lives in a place that only evolution can explain, then say so.

Otherwise quit throwing out generalities and expecting an encyclopedic response.

I have no interest in cataloguing every species for your pleasure and explaining that each of them lives there because it is there that they find food and shelter. Laughing



There is nothing negative about the question at all.

Attempting to categorize it as such is avoiding the question.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 01:46 pm
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
mY SPECIFIC QUESTION Was , WHAT IS IT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT crEATIONISM EXPLAINS OR EVIDENCES? yOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION totally


This is not a specific question.

It is a vague 'so, can you prove a negative?' kind of a question.

If you think there is some species that lives in a place that only evolution can explain, then say so.

Otherwise quit throwing out generalities and expecting an encyclopedic response.

I have no interest in cataloguing every species for your pleasure and explaining that each of them lives there because it is there that they find food and shelter. Laughing


In other words he can't answer it so he's dodging.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 02:22 pm
Not at all.

"Creationism" is a vague word and hence the question is vague.

On the principles explained in my previous post "evolution" could be explained in terms of speciation along the lines of fashionable attire. At what point in the 3.5 billion years of the known history of life on earth does protoplasmic life begin to show an integrative tendency capable of being appreciated by Darwin? On the timescales involved it almost might have been just a few years back.

Those proto life forms are immortal. Many plants, maybe all plants, can grow from any bit of them under the right conditions. Hence pruning and growth from cuttings.

Carrel and Ebeling in 1912 kept a fragment of the heart of a chick embryo pulsating and growing. Somebody calculated that if it had been allowed unlimited growth it would now be as big as the solar system. Which sounds a bit far fetched to me.

Anyway- evolution is only concerned with a late development of life forms and has nothing to say about the creation of life itself and its possiblities which needs must have been programmed in.

Stretching things a bit, as philosophers are wont to do in their search for truth, one can say that a man with bowed legs from riding horses is a new species or those steatopygiac Hottentot ladies who sit down a lot. In the latter case the characteristic is hereditable. That is to provide extra sweating surfaces in hot climates.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 02:27 pm
The bustle was invented by Victorian ladies for gentlemen returning from the heart of darkness in order to give them an impression relating to what they had become habituated to on their colonial missions.
0 Replies
 
smorgs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 02:31 pm
I heard that!

I thought it was an urban myth?

x
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 02:37 pm
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
mY SPECIFIC QUESTION Was , WHAT IS IT ABOUT BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT crEATIONISM EXPLAINS OR EVIDENCES? yOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION totally


This is not a specific question.

It is a vague 'so, can you prove a negative?' kind of a question.

If you think there is some species that lives in a place that only evolution can explain, then say so.

Otherwise quit throwing out generalities and expecting an encyclopedic response.

I have no interest in cataloguing every species for your pleasure and explaining that each of them lives there because it is there that they find food and shelter. Laughing

This is not a request to prove a negitive. Face it, your claim is unfounded and unsupported.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 02:38 pm
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:


Thanks RL, it was a good article.

It ended with this:
Quote:
If the general small-molecule paradigm were confirmed, then our expectations of the place of life in the universe would change. A highly implausible start for life, as in the RNA-first scenario, implies a universe in which we are alone. In the words of the late Jacques Monod, "The universe was not pregnant with life nor the biosphere with man. Our number came up in the Monte Carlo game." The small-molecule alternative, however, is in harmony with the views of biologist Stuart Kauffman: "If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with unknown companions."


If life was really THAT probable, then we should see LOTS of examples of different kinds of life, most (all but 1) of them without[/i][/u] DNA.

Not necessarily. The first replicative forms, whatever they may have been, could simply have out-competed any other replicators.

I'm not surprised at all to have only one form of replication system which dominated the early earth.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 03:33 pm
ros,

Perhaps you miss Shapiro's point.

He is saying there WERE no replicators in early life.

Just small molecules reacting in a protective bubble.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 03:35 pm
again, spendirant notwithstanding, RL has shown , once again, that, while he parses out information in language that assumpsits that hes knowledgeable of the lingo of species and biogeography, hes not willing to join in. Ive made my question, and its clear. He wishes to dodge further by invoking some debate escape clause, when, I think that weve been most accomodating and have presented him more data and evidence than he was aware existed.

I shall therefore assume that RL does not wish to provide ANY evidence of how Creationism supports biogeography. (cause it doesnt at all, it actually nicely refutes it).
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 03:54 pm
The argument for a pre-ribonucleic acid world was the entire point Shapiro was making. Nothing new here.
Haldane posed it, as did many more modern researchers.
I still admire the data driven work that Noller developed at UCSC just after Kech recd a Nobel prize on peptide linkage. Noller found that peptide bonds are catalyzed bt RNA(He stripped all the proteins from the structure and it still linked.

SO DNA cant assemble itself, it takes proteins (we see evidence of many of these "life" proteins in start sprctra) RNA can assemble itself as can PNA and GNA.

RNA is the evolutionary heirloom, along with small molcules (proteins and amino acids and nucleotides,can it assemble itself?)
I think Shapiro is merely speculating the mechanisms not the lab evidence.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 06:21 pm
Spendius wrote:
The bustle was invented by Victorian ladies for gentlemen returning from the heart of darkness in order to give them an impression relating to what they had become habituated to on their colonial missions.


As usual Spendius does not know what he's talking about. The bustle was invented by Charles Frederick Worth, a man.

Quote:
Charles Frederick Worth
born Oct. 13, 1825, Bourne, Lincolnshire, Eng.
died March 10, 1895, Paris, France

British-born French fashion designer.

In 1845 he left England, where he had been a bookkeeper, and worked in a Paris dress accessories shop. In 1858 he opened his own ladies' tailor shop and soon gained the patronage of the empress Eugénie. He was a pioneer of the "fashion show" (the preparation and showing of a collection), the first man to become prominent in the field of fashion, and the first designer to create dresses intended to be copied and distributed throughout the world. He became the dictator of Paris fashion and was especially noted for his elegant Second Empire gowns. He invented the bustle, which became standard in women's fashion in the 1870s and '80s.




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Worth.jpg

Crinoline --A circular age-like frame made of flexible steel wire hoops, worn underneath a ladies skirt to give it a full shape. Before the crinoline was introduced in 1856, women had to wear as many as 6 full petticoats to make their skirts stick out in the fashionable bell shape!

Bustle --A Padded frame used to bulk out the back of a ladies skirt. The bustle look replaced the Crinoline in the 1870's. In the 1880's a metal bustle was invented so that when the wearer sat down, the frame would bunch, and automatically spring back into shape when she stood up!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/drama/images/costume/vic5.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 06:32 pm
spendi is a library of misinformation, but I love the way he composes his posts in such a way that it has entertainment value.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 06:39 pm
spendius wrote:
The bustle was invented by Victorian ladies for gentlemen returning from the heart of darkness in order to give them an impression relating to what they had become habituated to on their colonial missions.


This is preposterous!
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 06:52 pm
The only reason I bought this up is we all know how ignorant Spendius is when he talks about evolution. It seems he's just as ignorant when he talks about things outside of evolution, like bustles.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 08:51 pm
real life wrote:
ros,

Perhaps you miss Shapiro's point.

He is saying there WERE no replicators in early life.

Just small molecules reacting in a protective bubble.

I get Shapiro's point, he's just saying that there might have been small molecules reacting in a "chemical network" (his choice of words) before, and possibly as a precursor to, replicative molecules. I don't find that very surprising. Do you ?

Over all, his idea of a chemical networks as a basis for replicative development was a neat idea. I like it.

But I think maybe I'm missing YOUR point. Were you trying to make a point through this article?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:05:32