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

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
RL is trying to make a simplistic point that such life was unable to reproduce. Duhhh.

Do you not see this as a problem?

It does make it hard to argue that they are talking about Darwinian evolution.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
RL is trying to make a simplistic point that such life was unable to reproduce. Duhhh.

Do you not see this as a problem?

It does make it hard to argue that they are talking about Darwinian evolution.

If a (very) simple, basic organism were to generate itself from dead chemicals, in the manner described by Shapiro (whether or not you consider it technically to be part of a discussion about evolution is really immaterial) , is it going to evolve if it cannot replicate itself?

0 Replies

How is it that the same chemical reaction yields the ame products the planet over? Transactional genomics doesnt mean exact reproduction, only facsimiles. Once lief emerges, we still have no idea when GNA and higher arose. We only know, from C12 and right handed Calciamines that life ws around at almost 3. + BYA. .

Finding 3 C12 structured carbonotites from the ISua Formation can mean that the predecessor of RNA was TNA or GNA,

RL seems to want to believe that there are some things that we are NOT meant to understand. (AT lest he would wish all this scientific inquiry would go away, just like Admiral Fitzroy who spoke out against Darwinian "heresy"), all this at a public meeting when Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce was all wound up to take Darwin apart. Darwin , however, was too busy at home puking his guts up so Dr Huxley dissected Soapy Sam.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Transactional genomics doesnt mean exact reproduction, only facsimiles.

Good luck at producing life in this manner, fm. An attitude of 'Close enough for government work' isn't going to make a delicately balanced chemical system of interdependent reactions easy to split into two and keep the integrity of either successor. 'Garbage bag' life may be an attractive concept until reality sets in.

The fact is that proposing first life as a 'metabolism first' entity and then trying to back door a method of replication really stretches credulity.

Instead of 'metabolism first' or 'replicator first' , you're really trying to insinuate that BOTH showed up at the same time.

If replication is really so uncomplicated as to be easily handled by small molecules, each holding 'some' of the information necessary for the organism as a whole, then WHY DNA?

Why was the production of DNA needed? It would've in fact been a great impediment if the organism was already successfully replicating by means of small molecules.

A molecule such as DNA would suck up resources and energy needed by the rest of the organism. Wouldn't that be a 'survival disadvantage' ?

And (here is the $64 question) if a replicator xNA did arise within an already functioning organism, how did the replicator successfully encode itself with all of the information necessary to reproduce the environment that produced it?

How did DNA take over functions of respiration, replication, defense , maintenance, etc which were ALREADY occuring?

Kinda like changing drivers while doing 75 on the turnpike, isn't it? Laughing

farmerman wrote:

RL seems to want to believe that there are some things that we are NOT meant to understand. (AT lest he would wish all this scientific inquiry would go away

What are you talking about? Your imagination has got the better of you. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If replication is really so uncomplicated as to be easily handled by small molecules, each holding 'some' of the information necessary for the organism as a whole, then WHY DNA?

By the same token, you might ask why does life evolve at all? Why does complexity arise?

These are good questions. The Red Queen Principle comes to mind, and there are lots of theories. Complexity is an interesting subject.

But the first thing have to realize is that DNA must have evolved from simpler replicators because it doesn't survive in an open environment all by itself. Nobody is claiming that DNA popped out of nowhere by itself. And DNA is probably as far more advanced than its predecessor molecule as multi-celled organisms are from DNA.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
If replication is really so uncomplicated as to be easily handled by small molecules, each holding 'some' of the information necessary for the organism as a whole, then WHY DNA?

By the same token, you might ask why does life evolve at all? Why does complexity arise?

These are good questions. The Red Queen Principle comes to mind, and there are lots of theories. Complexity is an interesting subject.

But the first thing have to realize is that DNA must have evolved from simpler replicators because it doesn't survive in an open environment all by itself. Nobody is claiming that DNA popped out of nowhere by itself. And DNA is probably as far more advanced than its predecessor molecule as multi-celled organisms are from DNA.

My 'why' is in relation to evolution.

Why do evolutionists believe that development of a totally unnecessary xNA molecule, which would use up precious resources and energy, could ever represent a survival advantage?

Isn't it just the opposite?

Since it must've (by evolutionary standards) taken many attempts, and would've been useless until it was successfully operating, it represents a millstone around the neck of the fledgling organism.

Even when , after many attempts, it becomes successful, it is simply a duplication of effort, if indeed replication of the living organism was already successfully occurring.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

My 'why' is in relation to evolution.

Why do evolutionists believe that development of a totally unnecessary xNA molecule, which would use up precious resources and energy, could ever represent a survival advantage?

Are you familiar with The Red Queen Principle?

0 Replies

--As a basic restatement of evolution ('those that adapt survive'), the RQP would seem to preclude a 'first-life' organism, such as Shapiro's proto-cell, from expending (within it's short lifetime) large amounts of time , energy and resources developing a huge molecule like an xNA, especially if replication is ALREADY (supposedly) being handled by small molecules.

--And then if it did happen, how did the xNA take over all of the encoding for life functions (respiration, replication, defense , maintenance, etc ) that were ALREADY occurring long before it arrived?

0 Replies

When are going to post some evidence for your own beliefs? When are going to back up 'poofism' with some facts?

0 Replies

Mornin' Wilso,

The thread is about 'don't tell me there's no evidence for evolution'.

It's funny how whenever someone questions evolution, the reflex is to change the subject 'well, what about creation, then?'

Evolutionists don't handle criticism well, I've noticed. They're rather touchy about that sort of thing.

Hope you are having a great day.

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

btw Wanna give us your take on whether the first organism was a 'replicator first' affair, or a 'metabolism first' entity such as proposed by Shapiro? http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7

I'm always interested to hear what you think.

0 Replies

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=103667&highlight=

You put the challenge out there loser. Go for it.

0 Replies

As I said, always changing the subject.

So, about 'first life' Wilso......................

'replicator first'?

'metabolism first'?

any other options?

0 Replies

evolution is about the origin of species (not origin of life)

0 Replies

Mornin' wandeljw,

The article by Shapiro has several eminent scientists describing origin of life as 'the first step in evolution'.

Do you disagree?

Isn't the study of origin of the first species just as much a part of evolution as the origin of the second, or the third species, or the fourth?

At least these credentialed gents seem to think so.

0 Replies

Some scientists may be focusing on origin of life questions, but that is not an interest for me.

0 Replies

No problem with that.

But you seemed to want to disqualify discussion of origin of life from the overall discussion of evolution.

It is often taught in public schools as part of one package and the scientists quoted by Shapiro seemed to have no problem with considering it as part of evolution.

0 Replies

imagine how long the schoolday would be if we had to give equal time to every three scientists that agreed on something...

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Mornin' wandeljw,

The article by Shapiro has several eminent scientists describing origin of life as 'the first step in evolution'.

Do you disagree?

Yes, and you were shown to be wrong because they were talking about "chemical evolution". Rather than admit your error you have continued to argue that even though they differentiated from "Darwinian evolution" "they must agree with you that they are the same thing. I posted a quote from the magazine that you quoted that specifically differentiates what you are quoting from Darwinian evolution. You are free to ignore what that science magazine says. You are not free to LIE about what that science magazine says.

Quote:

Isn't the study of origin of the first species just as much a part of evolution as the origin of the second, or the third species, or the fourth?

At least these credentialed gents seem to think so.

Only in your mind. The science literature differentiates between chemical evolution that is the possible origin of life and Darwinian evolution which occurs within life.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

No problem with that.

But you seemed to want to disqualify discussion of origin of life from the overall discussion of evolution.

It is often taught in public schools as part of one package and the scientists quoted by Shapiro seemed to have no problem with considering it as part of evolution.

Repeating your lie won't make it true..

Please point to where they used the word "species" or "Darwinian" in their use of the word "evolution" in Shapiro's piece They do use the words "Chemical" and "molecule" several times in the article.
The times that the piece by Shapiro uses the word "Darwinian" would seem to preclude your interpretation of chemical reactions being life.

From Shapiro's piece..

Quote:

Many different definitions of life have been proposed. Muller's remark would be in accord with what has been called the NASA definition of life: Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

So, in order for it to be life it MUST be capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution..

Now later in Shapiro's piece..

Quote:

To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth. Such a sequence would start usually with compounds of carbon that had been produced in spark discharge experiments or found in meteorites. The observation of a specific organic chemical in any quantity (even as part of a complex mixture) in one of the above sources would justify its classification as "prebiotic," a substance that supposedly had been proved to be present on the early Earth. Once awarded this distinction, the chemical could then be used in pure form, in any quantity, in another prebiotic reaction. The products of such a reaction would also be considered "prebiotic" and employed in the next step in the sequence.

The use of reaction sequences of this type (without any reference to the origin of life) has long been an honored practice in the traditional field of synthetic organic chemistry.

You might want to look up the word "prebiotic" RL.. It means BEFORE life which means before Darwinian evolution by the definition that Shapiro gave earlier.

But Shapiro goes on to say that not everyone agrees with that definition and sequence to get to life.

Quote:

Fortunately, an alternative group of theories that can employ these materials has existed for decades. The theories employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life, ....

Origin-of-life proposals of this type differ in specific details; here I will try to list five common requirements (and add some ideas of my own).

(1) A boundary is needed to separate life from non-life.
...
(2) An energy source is needed to drive the organization process.
...
(3) A coupling mechanism must link the release of energy to the organization process that produces and sustains life
...
(4) A chemical network must be formed, to permit adaptation and evolution.
...
(5) The network must grow and reproduce.

Again we see that before it can be considered life it must allow adaptation. Shapiro's piece is on how chemical reactions could become life.

But then Shapiro himself goes on to completely debunk your claim

Quote:

Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution.

It seems Shapirio himself says that how life is created is DIFFERENT from Darwinian evolution.

Your argument is now debunked RL. I have used Shapiro's own words to differentiate between the creation of life and Darwinian evolution. The chemical processes that evolved into life are in no way considered Darwinian evolution by Shapiro or those 1/3 of origin of life scientists he agrees with. You are free to continue to try to put words into Shapiro's mouth but his own words will refute you every time.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
No problem with that.

But you seemed to want to disqualify discussion of origin of life from the overall discussion of evolution.

It is often taught in public schools as part of one package and the scientists quoted by Shapiro seemed to have no problem with considering it as part of evolution.

Repeating your lie won't make it true..

It appears that not everyone insists on the rigid distinction that you clamor for.

They tend to see the study of evolution as a continuum including the origin of life.

This is true among researchers and educators, as I have indicated.

from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

Quote:

However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

from http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/

Quote:

Welcome to Geology 146, "Origin and Evolution of Life on Planet Earth." This course is designed to use the web to supplement the textbook. You can use the set of links on this website to learn about the major topics covered in the course.

To use this website most effectively, go to the lecture notes and click on a specific lecture topic. This will bring up lecture notes or a content outline (if available) and additional www links to specific topics covered in the course lecture.

Use this introductory web page to access course materials and other internet resources. The resources listed below are generalized ones that do not fit into the specific categories explored in the lectures.

This resource is updated throughout the semester.

from http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/GeoBio350/GeoBio350.html

Quote:

Invertebrate Paleontology
The Origin and History of Life on Earth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn S. Fichter - [email protected]
James Madison University; 233 Miller Hall - phone 6531

Catalog Description
The history of non-vertebrate life from its origin, through evolving biogeochemical cycles, origin of eukaryotes and multicellularity; evolutionary records of all major groups and theoretical issues such as major group origins, adaptive radiation patterns, extinctions, functional adaptations, and paleoecology. 4 credits (3, 2)

from http://www.bact.wisc.edu/themicrobialworld/origins.html

Quote:

THE ORIGIN OF CELLULAR LIFE
When life arose on Earth about 4 billion years ago, the first types of cells to evolve were procaryotic cells.....

from http://www-sbras.nsc.ru/ws/BOE-2007/index.en.html

Quote:

PLENARY LECTURES

Reviews

PLR-I. Prof. Antonio Lazcano
ISSOL President, Mexico
PREBIOTIC EVOLUTION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE: A STATUS REPORT

from http://spot.colorado.edu/~dubin/bookmarks/b/1115.html

Quote:

EVOLUTION - ORIGIN OF LIFE

from http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/Timeline_of_human_evolution/

Quote:

The timeline of human evolution outlines the major events in the development of humans species and the evolution of human's ancestors. It begins with the time of the origin of life ..............

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know