65
   

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

 
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 09:12 pm
real life wrote:


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




nylonases

And all the AIG mess has already been shown to be wrong
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.htmlNylonase Enzymes
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4565844&highlight=nylon


and:
real life wrote:

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?



Once again, evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Populations evolve. Individual organisms do not evolve. They retain the same genes throughout their life.

Maybe you'll like the rabbits better....

Quote:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/factandtheory.html

Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.
For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).
Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.
Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.
Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.
These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.
Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.
Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"
Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.
To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 09:20 pm
Evolution happens over long spans of time - like millions of years from the very first life forms to what we see today.

Scientists are always trying to replicate life, but we must remember that the knowledge about atoms and our ability to "see" it are relatively new science.

Our short lifespans also doesn't allow most of us to "see" evolution in progress, because we are not exposed to the right environment or study.

Most of us are relegated to scientific papers and magazines that shares
their latest findings.

I'm confident that scientists will some day find the proper processes to emulate the creation of life. We're still studying DNA, RNA, and proteins. Water is the key. Microbiology is still a young science.

That's how I see it as of today.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 04:50 am
Hey xingu and littlek-

I was only having a bit of fun. And anyway Gertrude Stein said that myths and legends are more important than mere facts.

Like c.i. suggests- it's the entertainment.

I am not sure rl is a man as you all keep saying. Is there any evidence that rl is a bloke?

rl- Evolution is just something atheists have barnacled onto in recent years to prove to themselves that there is no God, or Creator as Mr Bush called Him at least twice in a speech I saw him make a few days ago.

There were atheists long before Darwin was first thought of. And they had much better arguments than your protagonists on here are offering.
Donatien Alphonse Francois, Marquis de Sade for example.

Atheism in a Christian country is a psychological category outside the normal. There is a mechanism to explain its appearence.

The immigrants from Europe wanted to become Americans but couldn't do due to the difficulties presented by the new world to people who had been socialised in the old world. They couldn't become complete Americans because their character, their modes of thought and their accents carried the stain of Europe. But their children could become Americans. The second generation was educated to be American. When that change had taken place the parents were rejected as old-fashioned, ignorant and alien even. The more successful the transmutation the more a sense of shame attached to the parents and, because the mother still remained a source of comfort and love, the father, who was off working, lost his authority the most.

This leads to a position where a degree of contempt is directed towards the parents by this Americanised second generation.

Patriarchal authority was diminished and usually with the approval of the father who wanted his children to be the Americans he could never be himself. This dynamic increased the relative authority of the mother and the setting up of a feminine conscience in the nation symbolised by the Statue of Liberty, the alma mater, the pussy whip and Mom and apple-pie imagery and reinforced by nationally syndicated comic strips such as Bringing Up Father and Blondie and many American movies and TV series in which the father is presnted as something of a gump. The exaggerated displays of faked machismo are a natural reaction.

Authority itself comes to be suspect and distrusted by association and the highest authority in the old world was Christianity a patriarchal religion.

Hence atheism became popular in those who had been most successfully Americanised because it was anti-authority.

Janet Hobhouse, an American, writes about Gertrude Stein-

Quote:
During these years (her childhood), their father's society was one which both Gertrude and Leo preferred to avoid. In Gertrude's case, this dislike of her father became a life-long aversion to all authorities and father-figures. "Fathers are depressing," she later wrote, "mothers may not be cheering but they are not as depressing as fathers." It was a feeling which was later to form the core of her political opinions in the 1930s, a time of dictatorships in which "there [was] too much fathering going on".


Bob Hope offered Marilyn to the troops in Korea with the remark- "This is what you're fighting for boys."

These considerations are most pronounced in the socially and geographically mobile and particularly in cities.

Hence, rl, atheism is a part of your opponents persona. You are not going to change it arguing about such trivial matters as DNA, RNA, peptide whatsits, proteins, nucleotides or biogeography. Those are forms of mental dress rather than mental clothing. They are fashions worn for agressive assertiveness reasons. Bourgeoise cudgels.

I'm afraid that you are helping your opponents to evade the more important aspect of these matters which is, obviously, the social consequences of their position if it wins the day. You must have noticed how carefully they avoid that topic despite my proddings and goadings and it is the only subject worthy of serious debate. That is the reason they engage with you and ignore what I have to say as best they can.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 04:58 am
xingu wrote-

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


So you think that whatever a man chooses to invent is going to be automatically worn by the ladies. It is the demand from the ladies that does the inventing and not stuffing a fancy cushion up the back of ladies' frocks once they have decided what they want. Any clunker could think of that as a way of satisfying the demand. Necessity is the mother of invention. My point has more credibility than yours even if I was a bit careless with my word choice for efficiency reasons.

You're a male chauvinist pig. A pedantic one to boot.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 05:01 am
spendius wrote:
Hey xingu and littlek-

I was only having a bit of fun. And anyway Gertrude Stein said that myths and legends are more important than mere facts.

Like c.i. suggests- it's the entertainment.

I am not sure rl is a man as you all keep saying. Is there any evidence that rl is a bloke?

rl- Evolution is just something atheists have barnacled onto in recent years to prove to themselves that there is no God, or Creator as Mr Bush called Him at least twice in a speech I saw him make a few days ago.

There were atheists long before Darwin was first thought of. And they had much better arguments than your protagonists on here are offering.
Donatien Alphonse Francois, Marquis de Sade for example.

Atheism in a Christian country is a psychological category outside the normal. There is a mechanism to explain its appearence.

The immigrants from Europe wanted to become Americans but couldn't do due to the difficulties presented by the new world to people who had been socialised in the old world. They couldn't become complete Americans because their character, their modes of thought and their accents carried the stain of Europe. But their children could become Americans. The second generation was educated to be American. When that change had taken place the parents were rejected as old-fashioned, ignorant and alien even. The more successful the transmutation the more a sense of shame attached to the parents and, because the mother still remained a source of comfort and love, the father, who was off working, lost his authority the most.

This leads to a position where a degree of contempt is directed towards the parents by this Americanised second generation.

Patriarchal authority was diminished and usually with the approval of the father who wanted his children to be the Americans he could never be himself. This dynamic increased the relative authority of the mother and the setting up of a feminine conscience in the nation symbolised by the Statue of Liberty, the alma mater, the pussy whip and Mom and apple-pie imagery and reinforced by nationally syndicated comic strips such as Bringing Up Father and Blondie and many American movies and TV series in which the father is presnted as something of a gump. The exaggerated displays of faked machismo are a natural reaction.

Authority itself comes to be suspect and distrusted by association and the highest authority in the old world was Christianity a patriarchal religion.

Hence atheism became popular in those who had been most successfully Americanised because it was anti-authority.

Janet Hobhouse, an American, writes about Gertrude Stein-

Quote:
During these years (her childhood), their father's society was one which both Gertrude and Leo preferred to avoid. In Gertrude's case, this dislike of her father became a life-long aversion to all authorities and father-figures. "Fathers are depressing," she later wrote, "mothers may not be cheering but they are not as depressing as fathers." It was a feeling which was later to form the core of her political opinions in the 1930s, a time of dictatorships in which "there [was] too much fathering going on".


Bob Hope offered Marilyn to the troops in Korea with the remark- "This is what you're fighting for boys."

These considerations are most pronounced in the socially and geographically mobile and particularly in cities.

Hence, rl, atheism is a part of your opponents persona. You are not going to change it arguing about such trivial matters as DNA, RNA, peptide whatsits, proteins, nucleotides or biogeography. Those are forms of mental dress rather than mental clothing. They are fashions worn for agressive assertiveness reasons. Bourgeoise cudgels.

I'm afraid that you are helping your opponents to evade the more important aspect of these matters which is, obviously, the social consequences of their position if it wins the day. You must have noticed how carefully they avoid that topic despite my proddings and goadings and it is the only subject worthy of serious debate. That is the reason they engage with you and ignore what I have to say as best they can.


Laughing Entertaining reading, but a load of crap.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 05:53 am
You're in denial Ed. Be specific- what was crap? I don't take any notice of simple assertions. Educate me. I'm a willing learner. How can I avoid writing crap if nobody tells me why it is crap?

The introduction of the full pitch delivery in the bat/ball game is a rejection of English tradition. It has resulted in baseball which allows fat slobs to posture as sporting heroes and its rejection by the rest of the world. Those "batsmen" you have wouldn't last an over against Monte Panesar or Steve Harmison. All they ever seem to do is swipe.

It's the same with the rejection of the English rule of forbidding the forward pass in the ball handling game.

It allows the faked machismo of "padding" and continual rest periods to pose as "manly" to the Mums and cheerleaders.

And you are conspicuous by your absence in all the main World Cups.

It's sulking really.

And all your horserace tracks are the same so that your jocks and trainers don't need the sort of expertise our lot have to master.

It all puts you on the sidelines in world sport and that pains me. It's a crying shame. We all lose by it. With 300 million people you should be "up there" as Andy Warhol always said.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 06:49 am
spendius wrote:
xingu wrote-

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


So you think that whatever a man chooses to invent is going to be automatically worn by the ladies. It is the demand from the ladies that does the inventing and not stuffing a fancy cushion up the back of ladies' frocks once they have decided what they want. Any clunker could think of that as a way of satisfying the demand. Necessity is the mother of invention. My point has more credibility than yours even if I was a bit careless with my word choice for efficiency reasons.

You're a male chauvinist pig. A pedantic one to boot.


Your point has no credibility BECAUSE of your world choice.

I have to admit I have never would have accused you of making word choices for efficiency. You tend to avoid efficiency at all costs when it comes to your rambling.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 07:09 am
Here we have Shapiro, an award winning chemist and 100% evolutionist.

But since you don't agree with him, you conclude

*cues the laughtrack*

farmerman wrote:

I think Shapiro is merely speculating the mechanisms not the lab evidence.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 07:20 am
spendius wrote:
Hey xingu and littlek-

I was only having a bit of fun. And anyway Gertrude Stein said that myths and legends are more important than mere facts.

Like c.i. suggests- it's the entertainment.

I am not sure rl is a man as you all keep saying. Is there any evidence that rl is a bloke?


Well, I won't be posting a 'smoking gun' pic, but take my word for it, I am a man. And my wife and kids would say so, but they don't post here.

spendius wrote:
rl- Evolution is just something atheists have barnacled onto in recent years to prove to themselves that there is no God, or Creator as Mr Bush called Him at least twice in a speech I saw him make a few days ago.

There were atheists long before Darwin was first thought of. And they had much better arguments than your protagonists on here are offering.
Donatien Alphonse Francois, Marquis de Sade for example.

Atheism in a Christian country is a psychological category outside the normal. There is a mechanism to explain its appearence.

The immigrants from Europe wanted to become Americans but couldn't do due to the difficulties presented by the new world to people who had been socialised in the old world. They couldn't become complete Americans because their character, their modes of thought and their accents carried the stain of Europe. But their children could become Americans. The second generation was educated to be American. When that change had taken place the parents were rejected as old-fashioned, ignorant and alien even. The more successful the transmutation the more a sense of shame attached to the parents and, because the mother still remained a source of comfort and love, the father, who was off working, lost his authority the most.

This leads to a position where a degree of contempt is directed towards the parents by this Americanised second generation.

Patriarchal authority was diminished and usually with the approval of the father who wanted his children to be the Americans he could never be himself. This dynamic increased the relative authority of the mother and the setting up of a feminine conscience in the nation symbolised by the Statue of Liberty, the alma mater, the pussy whip and Mom and apple-pie imagery and reinforced by nationally syndicated comic strips such as Bringing Up Father and Blondie and many American movies and TV series in which the father is presnted as something of a gump. The exaggerated displays of faked machismo are a natural reaction.

Authority itself comes to be suspect and distrusted by association and the highest authority in the old world was Christianity a patriarchal religion.

Hence atheism became popular in those who had been most successfully Americanised because it was anti-authority.

Janet Hobhouse, an American, writes about Gertrude Stein-

Quote:
During these years (her childhood), their father's society was one which both Gertrude and Leo preferred to avoid. In Gertrude's case, this dislike of her father became a life-long aversion to all authorities and father-figures. "Fathers are depressing," she later wrote, "mothers may not be cheering but they are not as depressing as fathers." It was a feeling which was later to form the core of her political opinions in the 1930s, a time of dictatorships in which "there [was] too much fathering going on".


Bob Hope offered Marilyn to the troops in Korea with the remark- "This is what you're fighting for boys."

These considerations are most pronounced in the socially and geographically mobile and particularly in cities.

Hence, rl, atheism is a part of your opponents persona. You are not going to change it arguing about such trivial matters as DNA, RNA, peptide whatsits, proteins, nucleotides or biogeography. Those are forms of mental dress rather than mental clothing. They are fashions worn for agressive assertiveness reasons. Bourgeoise cudgels.

I'm afraid that you are helping your opponents to evade the more important aspect of these matters which is, obviously, the social consequences of their position if it wins the day. You must have noticed how carefully they avoid that topic despite my proddings and goadings and it is the only subject worthy of serious debate. That is the reason they engage with you and ignore what I have to say as best they can.


I agree that personal bias and preference for lifestyle play a large part in this.

Evolutionists tend to ignore the social consequences of their theory because they consider themselves 'crusaders for THE truth'. It's very much a religious mentality.

Although, you seem rather agnostic at times, but you favor religion because of the superior benefits that Western societies have reaped under Christianity, including political and personal freedoms, many evolutionists could care less. They think prosperity and freedom grows on a tree.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 07:26 am
Pauligirl wrote:
real life wrote:


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




nylonases

And all the AIG mess has already been shown to be wrong
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.htmlNylonase Enzymes
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4565844&highlight=nylon


and:
real life wrote:

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?



Once again, evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Populations evolve. Individual organisms do not evolve. They retain the same genes throughout their life.

Maybe you'll like the rabbits better....

Quote:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/factandtheory.html

Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.
For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).
Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.
Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.
Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.
These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.
Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.
Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"
Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.
To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.


How have short haired rabbits survived all this time WITHOUT a farmer's help?

They know how to keep warm. They are rabbits. Laughing

Your attempted soft sell of 'microevolution' and your example of walking is a sham.

Conflating microevolution into macroevolution is like saying that since a critter could survive one day without water , that he could also survive fifty days without water.

'It's the same process, isn't it?' Laughing

No, it obviously is not.

You see, biological systems have limits. Built in, unavoidable limits. :wink:
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 07:29 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Evolution happens over long spans of time - like millions of years from the very first life forms to what we see today. . .
Once again, it is well to remind you that CI has been around long enough to verify this. :wink:
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 07:29 am
rosborne979 wrote:
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?


Perhaps you are missing my point as well.

Postulating a 'proto-cell' with NO replicative mechanism is a dead end.

The 'family line' is going nowhere.

That's my point.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 07:29 am
Quote:
And anyway Gertrude Stein said that myths and legends are more important than mere facts.


Guess that explains why your clueless about the real world.

Spendius wrote:
Evolution is just something atheists have barnacled onto in recent years to prove to themselves that there is no God, or Creator as Mr Bush called Him at least twice in a speech I saw him make a few days ago.


There are a lot of Christians who believe in evolution, but I suspect your ignorance does not allow you to know that. BTW Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist.

Spendius wrote:
So you think that whatever a man chooses to invent is going to be automatically worn by the ladies. It is the demand from the ladies that does the inventing and not stuffing a fancy cushion up the back of ladies' frocks once they have decided what they want. Any clunker could think of that as a way of satisfying the demand. Necessity is the mother of invention. My point has more credibility than yours even if I was a bit careless with my word choice for efficiency reasons.


The point is a man, Mr. Worth, invented the bustle, not a woman. It manners little what their demand was it was still a man that invented it. It would be the same as saying Edison didn't devise a better lightbulb, it was all the people in the world who wanted a better lightbulb who discovered it. Your choice of words were not careless. Your choice of words just revealed your depth of ignorance.

Spendius wrote:
You're a male chauvinist pig. A pedantic one to boot.

So pointing out to you that a man invented the bustle makes me a male chauvinist pig. That's about as intelligent as your argument against evolution.

Which bring up the point I stated earlier; your ignorance not only encompasses evolution but most everything outside of it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 07:39 am
neologist wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Evolution happens over long spans of time - like millions of years from the very first life forms to what we see today. . .
Once again, it is well to remind you that CI has been around long enough to verify this. :wink:


The only reason neo knows this, is because we used to buddy around in the good old days.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 08:00 am
real life wrote:
Postulating a 'proto-cell' with NO replicative mechanism is a dead end.

The 'family line' is going nowhere.

That's my point.

He's not postulating a 'proto-cell' with no replicative mechanism.

He's postulating what he's calling a 'chemical network'. It's more of a sequence of chemical processes which he believes might create a kind of chemical environment in which replicative molecules could arise.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 08:02 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
neologist wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Evolution happens over long spans of time - like millions of years from the very first life forms to what we see today. . .
Once again, it is well to remind you that CI has been around long enough to verify this. :wink:


The only reason neo knows this, is because we used to buddy around in the good old days.


WOW! You two guys are really old farts.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 08:12 am
yup! I think I age neo by about 2 thousand - give or take.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 09:18 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Postulating a 'proto-cell' with NO replicative mechanism is a dead end.

The 'family line' is going nowhere.

That's my point.

He's not postulating a 'proto-cell' with no replicative mechanism.

He's postulating what he's calling a 'chemical network'. It's more of a sequence of chemical processes ......


His chemical network is essentially a 'proto-cell'.

Shapiro wrote:
The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator.......


rosborne979 wrote:
......which he believes might create a kind of chemical environment in which replicative molecules could arise.


And we seem to agree that he proposes no replicative mechanism. So it is essentially a dead end. Even if his proto-cell is successful in generating itself, there is no future beyond this one member.

Unless you want to propose that this 'proto-cell' has an extraordinarily long life span (long enough for it to self generate an xNA molecule that is successful in not only replicating itself but also in encoding the information necessary to reproduce the environment , i.e . the proto-cell, which produced it. And how does it successfully encode the information necessary to reproduce the proto-cell itself? Why, it's a lucky guesser, that's how)[/i][/b] then it is a dead end.

Any 'proto-replicator' in a 'metabolism first' scenario (such as Shapiro proposes) will actually have 2 tasks that it must successfully perform on the first go (or the family line is toast).

One -- it must replicate a molecule like itself

Two -- it must reproduce the environment (the proto-cell) in which the replicative molecule was able to be produced , sheltered, nourished , etc.


------------------------

Phase two (the largest phase) of my project about to commence. Talk to you later. Cool
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 11:22 am
Hey xingu-

You'll be telling us that an American invented the ashtray next. And the back-scratcher.

According to the OED the first known use in print of the word "bustle" to define a "pad,or wire framework, worn beneath the skirt of a woman's dress, to expand it behind", was in 1788 which is before your genius was born.

The word was no doubt in use in speech before that.

The same word to mean "activity with excitement, noise and commotion" from which the later use was no doubt derived for obvious reasons, was first recorded in print in 1622.

If you don't think that myths and legends are more important than facts how do you explain why over 90% of Americans believe in some form of Creator and, seemingly, 100% of them believe that their own assertions are true merely on the evidence of them have spouted them.

Actually Darwin was a Christian. He was a magistrate and thus he presided over courts in which people were condemned to various rigorous punishments on the basis of evidence deemed to be true on the strength of an oath taken with the Bible in hand. And he attempted to teach some natives of Tierra del Fuego "...the plainer truths of Christianity." (His words). He almost became a country parson and he wrote that Jesus's religion remained- "wonderfully suitable....to our ideas of happiness in this & the next world."

I would be amazed if I had said he was an atheist.

My ignorance of "evolution" is profound as is everyone else's. The difference is that I know it.

Before you point out my cluelessness about the real world you might trying taking some action about your cluelessness about yourself.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 11:36 am
proto cells, once the reaction mechanism is established, are"immortal". Pertide linkage, like rust, only needs a small host of chemicals Since the base pairs are the small molecules, the replicant is the arrangement of the family of Oxyribonuclease You dont seem to catch what Shapiro is saying RL.
Obviously hes not postulated an evolutionary dead end, maybe dead ends for thousands of nucleoties that DIDNT WORK, (and does the L/R rotatory aminos acids have anything important to say)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 11:58:07