Evolution:

[Deinychus_rulz]

Wow, you really know how to pollute a thread with an Enter button . Is there proof that there is in fact "no proof".

Yes, if there was tangible proof it would be all over the place, what with those damn christians being so abundant... Other than that... ... I'm waiting...

[greggK]

You are a brave man. Prepare to be flamed and receive asinine remarks from mostly (not exclusively) atheistic evolutionists trying to derail the arguments presented. I predict the following will happen with this thread:

1) Subject will be changed or derailed.

2) Name-calling and/or flame-fest.

3) Asinine and snide remarks.

4) Ask you to provide a better theory.

5) Categorize you as an uneducated person who doesn't know a thing what you are talking about.

6) Never will any of the points presented discussed in detail.

7) Your evidence will be claimed as lies and already debunked without discussion.

But good luck.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The process called evolution is a fact in all species. But, the fact that a horse cannot evolve into a cow or a dog into a cat does not make evolution false. Can man evolve into a Higher Species? Well, I believe man evolved from the lower primates on up to the Homo Sapien Sapiens that he is now and like the dog or cat or horse or cow cannot evolve any higher. And that is where adaptation comes in. While we await the call for evolution to proceed, we have to adapt to the environment, but the environment of man is becoming not so ready for the push to evolution, in fact, man is like a dog now; 'Y'all go get your bone!'

[Doug1029]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The process called evolution is a fact in all species. But, the fact that a horse cannot evolve into a cow or a dog into a cat does not make evolution false. Can man evolve into a Higher Species? Well, I believe man evolved from the lower primates on up to the Homo Sapien Sapiens that he is now and like the dog or cat or horse or cow cannot evolve any higher. And that is where adaptation comes in. While we await the call for evolution to proceed, we have to adapt to the environment, but the environment of man is becoming not so ready for the push to evolution, in fact, man is like a dog now; 'Y'all go get your bone!'

"Lower" and "higher" have no meaning in discussions of evolution. Humans use these terms to imply that they are superior when that is not usually the case. Species are different and evolve under the influence of their environment. A horse cannot evolve into a cow or a dog into a cat, but all four of those species could evolve into something else. If humans survive, we will very likely become something else, but that is at least 40,000 generations away. At 4 generations per century that's a million years down the pike.

We are still being surprised by what life is: microbes that can survive water hot enough to melt lead, crustaceans that live in water so salty it would tan a moose hide, aspen clones a million years old, individual trees older than the pyramids, a viable lupine seed 10,000 years old.... Certainty about life, evolution or creation, comes from ignorance of life.

--DJS

[Cimber]

"Lower" and "higher" have no meaning in discussions of evolution. Humans use these terms to imply that they are superior when that is not usually the case. Species are different and evolve under the influence of their environment. A horse cannot evolve into a cow or a dog into a cat, but all four of those species could evolve into something else. If humans survive, we will very likely become something else, but that is at least 40,000 generations away. At 4 generations per century that's a million years down the pike.

People who do not understand the proccess of evolution use that argument all the time. Its good to see another intelligent person on the board who points this out to them just like I do.

[camlax]

Just how complex do you want those first supposedly "lifelike" molecules to be? Cytochrome c dwarfs in complexity to many molecules involved in DNA synthesis Eg PCNA.

Again you are making the assumption DNA must come first. Size is not a direct indication importance. If that were the case most of your peptide based NTs would be unimportant. I am not going to say how complex, because I nor anyone else knows the answer. That does not mean it will never be known.

I guess you are going to explain to me how natural selection worked on a molecular level in abiotic conditions in a way that only selected molecules that were conducive to the formation of life, and then give an appropriate example. Why dont we observe these examples in nature today or in a petri dish, test tube etc.

Since you hung up on providing factual examples can you provide to me an observable example of God or a Supernatural entity creating life? Why dont we observe these examples today or in a petri dish?

Nice, learn something new everyday. I didn't know sharks had a different osmregulatory system compared to other organisms (teleosts). How does it contribute to the discussion of evolution of life in prebiotic conditions? Im also interested in how you view the evolution of osmoregulation mechanisms as i can see you have a keen interest in it and i have no knowledge about it.

Your original quote

Where did these structures come from when there is no natural selection on the molecular level?

The selection for better regulatory mechanisms is all at a molecular level. Picking urea versus uric acid versus ammonia is happening on a molecular level.

So how do prions evolve and adapt to their environment and give their "offspring" a better chance to survival? Where does natural selection play a role in prion evolution? I really dont know and find it an interesting topic.

Selective reading for you on prions, please read up.

Tompa, Peter, and et. al. "Prion protein: Evolution caught en route." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 (8)(2001): 4431-4436.

Partridge, Linda, and Nicholas H. Barton. "Natural Selection: Evolving evolvability." Nature 407(2000): 457-458.

Queitsch, C., T. A. Sangster and S. Lindquist, 2002 Hsp90 as a capacitor of phenotypic variation. Nature 417: 618–624.

Mead, Simon, and et al.. "Balancing Selection at the Prion Protein Gene Consistent with Prehistoric Kurulike Epidemics." Science 300(2003):

Pennisi, Elizabeth , and et al.. "GENE EVOLUTION: Cannibalism and Prion Disease May Have Been Rampant in Ancient Humans." Science 300(2003): 227-228.

Well have to continue later I told someone from my lab I would cover a class for them tonight.

[questionmark]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The process called evolution is a fact in all species. But, the fact that a horse cannot evolve into a cow or a dog into a cat does not make evolution false. Can man evolve into a Higher Species? Well, I believe man evolved from the lower primates on up to the Homo Sapien Sapiens that he is now and like the dog or cat or horse or cow cannot evolve any higher. And that is where adaptation comes in. While we await the call for evolution to proceed, we have to adapt to the environment, but the environment of man is becoming not so ready for the push to evolution, in fact, man is like a dog now; 'Y'all go get your bone!'

Ok, I'll say it again: EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT LOWER OR HIGHER OR ABOUT BETTER OR WORSE, it is about survival.

[camlax]

Ok, I'll say it again: EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT LOWER OR HIGHER OR ABOUT BETTER OR WORSE, it is about survival.

shesh you would think they get it by now huh questionmark. Its common mis-belief everything is evolving to be human or we are the pinnacle of evolution.

[camlax]

So how do prions evolve and adapt to their environment and give their "offspring" a better chance to survival? Where does natural selection play a role in prion evolution? I really dont know and find it an interesting topic.

Can you or anybody else then at least tell me how the Miller-Urey experiment is then relevant and put in textbooks as a possible example of how life started? I bet you the idea of peptide formation leading to the formation of life made many many people think it is actually possible that it did happen that way. Misleading dont you think? How long are students going to be mislead then before it is corrected?

Miller-Urey is an important experiment because it shows under early earth like conditions organic compounds can form. That is important if you cannot see why then you are blinding yourself with bias. I remember way back in High School biology learning about it, no one said this is the way life had to arise. The most important part of the experiment is that inorganic compounds under early earth conditions can form organics. Its an example that adds more evidence to huge pile for a natural beginning. If organic molecules can form, its like more and more complex ones can form. Now before you blurt out your normal rantings, more complex ones have not been demonstrated via experimentation, but again that is not to say it wont happen. Just unknown at the moment.

As for the second part, again I think that you are letting your grudge blind you. Saying "Look we can see through experimentation that inorganic molecules can form organic ones under early earth conditions, and this is a strong indication that life had a natural beginning" is hardly misleading. Misleading is saying "Look, we have tons and tons and tons of evidence in support of evolution and other natural theories, but because they are theories we should disregard them and believe a supernatural entity started all life."

So in evolutionary terms it must therefore seem clear that cells evolved from viruses-like and prion-like particles? Ever seen any of those to replicate without a cell? They are inert without cells if im not mistaken.

Hey guy I would rather not play these run in circle games all day and you seem to enjoy it, that seems to be the main stay of your argument.

Well the cell is pretty irreducible at the moment in terms of abiogenesis. You need functional DNA, RNA, proteins, and a cell membrane for even the simplest cell. Off course you are going to argue that the cell didn’t just jump together all at once and that simpler precursors must have existed.

You said cells were irreducible, I simple showed you things that were smaller than cells. I am going to type this the last time to you since you obviously have a grudge against evolution and will not listen to anything anyway.

We don't know the precursors to the cell that does not mean we wont find them nor does it mean a natural beginning to life is wrong. Lack of knowledge does not disprove a theory. Rutherford found the proton in 1918, Protons are made of quarks, which were not discovered till the 60's. This does not mean in 1958 "proton theory" should have been abandoned because 40 years went by and we did not know the fundamental components of protons. It only meant we had more work to do.

Suggesting because we don't know the precursor at this time means natural beginings are wrong is a logical fallacy.

Ever seen an erythrocyte or platelet replicate. They are functional for a short period of time then degrades. Erythrocytes and platelets start out as erythroid progenitor and megakaryocyte progenitor cells. They have nice and functioning DNA that enables erythrocyte or platelets to form.

Again I told you I am done with this games. You showed your lack of knowledge and said a cell had to have DNA to be functional. Erythrocytes are a perfect example of a cell that is functional without DNA. Functionality does not mean alive, they are two different things. Functional means a cell is able to carry out its tasks, to function. Life means you need to reproduce with fidelity this is why a virus is not alive, but Natural selection still works on a virus.

Doesn't mean "natural only" either. Forensic science will tell you that. Did an axe naturally fall on a person's head or was there intelligence behind the death (murder by an intelligent organism eg a criminal person).

Actually it does. Natural is the only explanation there is. Your simple example there (which by the way you really need to lay off the ID think tank websites) is totally irrelevant. A person (who by the way is not supernatural) is intelligent because of evolution, the person dropping the axe can do so because of evolution, that has nothing to do with life starting.

I see what you are trying to do, illustrate that life is so complex it implies an intelligent designer but it does not. I attempted to explain this to one of your contemporaries here on the forum So I will go ahead and quote myself to save time. This is a metaphor.

These rules in themselves are not very complicated but allow for a great deal of variation. I think a good metaphor is birds flocking. Birds, when they flock have no intelligent leader, no intelligence behind the movements themselves, instead each bird is bound by a simple set of laws that make flocking appear, nonrandom and guided. These rules are things like; keep another bird 2 feet from your wing, do not bump into another bird, relay position to other birds by chirping, if you fall away from the flock, then catch back up, etc etc etc...

These are just simple examples but you get the point. B/c of the basic set of rules shared by each bird the mechanism of flocking appears guided by an intelligent agency. This is much the same way that artificial neural networks work. You would think the computer you are observing is smart and is has been programed for every possible situation, when in fact a simple set of rules allows for complex behaviors.

The axe is a poor example and does imply intelligence. But it is not like evolution at all.

No need to proclaim it as FACT, like so many do. Also i prefer it to be a hypothesis, as there are so many things that need to be tested for it to become a full blown theory. The molecules-to-man hypothesis if you like. And evolution theory of living observable organisms.

Again guy, take a deep breath here and let go of the grudge. I work in Academia and I have yet to hear someone say everything in evolution is final and fact. You can prefer it to be hypothesis all you want, evolution is a "full blow theory". Life evolves is a fact, the exact mechanism of evolution is theory.

Again you raise all these doubts, people like you are the worst kind of counter productive people. If you put half as much effort into understanding evolution and studying the origins of life you could maybe contribute to the field, it would seem you would rather bash it and retreat.

Ill ask you where is the mountains of evidence for your theory of life?

Like i have always said: Dont stop the endevours, just dont come to rash conclusions and have a dogmatic stance based on incomplete data.

You say don't stop the endeavors but it does not seem that you believe that, reading some of your other posts it would seem you rather gladly wallow in ignorance. There is no rash conclusion being drawn that life began naturally, its a rash conclusion to assume a supernatural being created all life. I think you need to really read up on what logical fallacies are and how often you go around using different types of them.

and C. unknown /=/ natural only

Again there is no evidence at all to support intelligent designer or supernatural entity therefore it is illogical to assume life began in that way.

And when none of them makes any sense?

Were still learning guy, come back and talk when you have some evidence of an intelligent designer.

Of course not, none have been found so far. Doesn't mean they should stop looking. They are looking for designed signals in scientific way, cant that be applied to living systems? "Signals" of irreducible complexity. Again, cells are pretty much irreducibly complex, meaning chance formation given billions of years seems unlikely at present, and science keep discovering more and more properties of cells which defy natural origin for biological complexity. Eg explain the natural origin of information rich polymers.

No it cant, read up on logical fallacies.

Comparing a signal from an extraterrestrial civilization and a designer of life is, well, just plain silly. Cells are also not irreducibly complex. IC means if you take away one of the parts the whole system is incapable of preforming its function. We already talked about erythrocytes, they preform their function just fine missing integral parts of the cell, so do many other cells and things less than cells.

IC would be like the example Behe gave, the bacterial flagellum. He thought if you took away one of the parts the whole was non functional. We all know where that went. (Type III secretory system anyone?)

[camlax]

What can you conclude from that, that is relevant to the discussion? Did cells evolve from peptide precursors?

This is getting silly, if you dont know how to debate properly then stop. You attempt to run in circles and its really silly, I am trying to be patient here.

Your original quote

In cells, protein chaperones (also proteins coded for by DNA) "guide" an amino acid sequence (peptide chain) into the correct 3d-conformation (native state) to form the correct functional protein structure.

The problem with most of your arguments and things you spew is you are doing them at a sub BS level biology education. (If you have a BS in biology or a relevant biology field ask for your money back). You make statements like this that are not true or not nearly that simple. A reader would assume a chaperone would be needed for all protein folding. This is not the case, tertiary folding happens fine with out chaperones. Actually lots of large proteins are folded without chaperones. Look it up. So if you want scientific credibility in your arguments get the science right.

I would think that any oxygen at all would be hazardous to the formation amino acids. You need at least a completely reducing setting for amino acids to form. Whether they are able to form in high enough concentrations is an even bigger worry.

Its not, very low percentage of oxygen is just fine, the atmosphere is a large place and the second atmosphere would have very little oxygen. It was a reducing atmosphere. I would not worry you are here typing on your computer aren't you.

Actually i got it from here. I am sure when you write up a thesis/article you look up an article, and when you see something referenced within the article, you use those references (after at least reading the abstract if you dont have access to it) and you dont reference the article itself. Isnt that what i did?

No you didn't. There is a difference between using the references on a paper to go look for more information and copy and pasting someone else's works cited. What you did, pretty much reduced the slight bit of credibility you had to 0.

I dont have access to 2 of the articles, the 3rd one im receiving from the library.

Again, see above, if you dont have access what you did was plagiarism.

Where else are you going to get your electrical discharge for the reaction to form amino acids?

Again I was correcting one of your statements. Getting a spark from lightning for some kind of electrical energy input does not mean everywhere on earth is being hit by lightning at once (which you implied when you said

Aminoacids can´t be built in the presence of an uncontrolled source of energy

)

You do not know the exact conditions of early earth therefore at the current realm of knowledge it is impossible to say that.

Are you saying no UV light , nothing at all, was able to reach the surface?

No I am not, I am saying by our second atmosphere our magnetosphere helped protect the planet much more than the first.

i didn't claim they cant be made at high temperature, but that they break down quicker than they can be made. thermophiles are only able to synthesize amino acids and peptides because of very nifty enzymes and a tightly controlled intracellular environment.

Again you are going in circles, you said originally

Aminoacids can´t be built in the presence of an uncontrolled source of energy" because lightning, heat

Get your science right, aminoacids can be built in the presence of heat, extreme heat to be exact.

Guess i should have said a very high percentage.

Actually you should not have said that, not at all even with "very high percentage" added on. We dont know every protein, so we can't even begin to guess the percentages of those without cysteine.

My mistake, 20 standard amino acids and a few involved in metabolic reactions. Out of thousands of posibilities and only left-handed ones.

Credibility thing again, I will just abbreviate as CTA in future posts to save time.

Regarding the origins of life, well that also belongs in that nice parts of our mind we call creativeness, imagination, fairy tales, etc

She believes that history will ultimately judge New-Darwinism theory as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology." She also believes that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is a complete funk."

Lynn Margulis

If you say so. Again no one is forcing you to accept evolution, die wallowing in your ignorance, it is your choice.

By they way Lynn Margulis, great person there to follow Gaia Theorist, haha haha. Man, My face hurt from laughing when you used a gaia theorist to debunk Neo-Darwinism. ha, whew haha.

[Doug1029]

I took the liberty of looking up the article mentioned above by Fearisgood regarding the "Ghadiri protein." The original article is: "A Chiroselective Peptide Replicator" by M. Reza Ghadiri, principal investigator, co-authored by Alan Saghatelian, Yohei Yokobayashi and Kathy Soltani. The article was published in "Nature," but I did not get the date and issue. A news release on the research was issued on February 15, 2001, so the artical probably appeared shortly before that date. Contact people are Keith McKeown, kmckeown@scripps.edu and Kathleen Burton kburton@mail.arc.nasa.gov.

Ghadiri regards his work as supporting evolution. He does not say that life originated in THIS way, only that this is one possible way. The molecule self-replicates, distinguishes beween two possible component pieces and corrects errors in incorrect stereomers.

If reproduction is the definition of life, then the evolution of life from non-living precursors has been proven.

It appears that Fearisgood has misunderstood the article, or is making his own interpretation (To do that would require access to Ghadiri's data and researchers are notoriously reluctant to share their data.).

The problem of protecting amide linkages from hydrolysis in water solutions was solved in 1932 by Max Bergmann and Leonidas Zervas at the University of Berlin. Part of the solution was to conduct the reaction at high temperature (200 degress C., almost 400 degrees F.). This supports the idea that life originated in the vicinity of hot springs on the ocean floor. The hormone oxytocin was synthesized this way in the early 1950s. Synthetic insulin (51 amino acide sequences) is made this way.

Apparently, there are ways for peptides to self-replicate in the presence of water.

--DJS

[Ironvos]

Hi, new here.

I havent read everything in this thread yet.

But i have a simple question for the ppl who are supposed to be creationists.

Would you find evolution more believable if it was written in a 2000 year old book ?

[logikvipr]

self-delusion is the result of a lack of education. creationists will someday learn this. will probably take 2000 yrs of whining, though

Edited August 5, 2007 by logikvipr

[Fearisgood]

Again you are making the assumption DNA must come first. Size is not a direct indication importance. If that were the case most of your peptide based NTs would be unimportant. I am not going to say how complex, because I nor anyone else knows the answer. That does not mean it will never be known.

At least we know anything spontaneously appearing with 500 bits of information (even 150) cannot reasonably be attributed to chance and happen more than once. So i guess you are going for the "metabolome first" hypothesis.

Since you hung up on providing factual examples can you provide to me an observable example of God or a Supernatural entity creating life? Why dont we observe these examples today or in a petri dish?

Which hypothesis is taught in science class? Philosophical naturalism...

My quote

Where did these structures come from when there is no natural selection on the molecular level?

You

The selection for better regulatory mechanisms is all at a molecular level. Picking urea versus uric acid versus ammonia is happening on a molecular level.

You know i am talking about prebiotic conditions. And i will ask you again: Explain how natural selection worked on a molecular level in prebiotic conditions in a way that only selected molecules that were conducive to the formation of life, and then give an appropriate example. Also consider the following.

Chemical Stability

Chemical stability is a question of whether the components can even react at all. By definition, all components in a hypothetical primordial soup would be stable, because if they were not, they would have already reacted. Amino acids are relatively stable in water and do not react to form proteins in water, and nucleotides do not react to form DNA. In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer, they must be chemically activated to react with other chemicals. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because the activated compounds will react with water and break down. How could proteins and DNA be formed in a hypothetical primordial watery soup if the activated compounds required to form them cannot exist in water? This is the problem of Chemical Stability.

Chemical Reactivity

Chemical reactivity deals with how fast the components react in a given reaction. If life began in a primordial soup by natural chemical reactions, then the laws of chemistry should be able to predict the sequence of these chains. But when amino acids react chemically, they react according to their reactivity, and not in some specified order necessary for life. As the protein or DNA chain is increasing in size through chemical reaction, we should see the most reactive amino acid adding to the chain first, followed by the next most reactive amino acid, and so on.

Let's assume that we begin with the sequence R-T-X, and will add two amino acids "B" and "A" to it. If amino acid "B" is the most reactive amino acid, the sequence would be R-T-X-B-A. However, if "A" is the most reactive amino acid, then the sequence would be R-T-X-A-B. In a random chemical reaction, the sequence of amino acids would be determined by the relative reactivity of the different amino acids. The polymer chain found in natural proteins and DNA has a very precise sequence that does not correlate with the individual components' reaction rates. Since all of the amino acids have relatively similar structures, they all have similar reaction rates; they will all react at about the same rate making the precise sequence by random chemical reactions unthinkably unlikely. This is the problem of Chemical Reactivity

Chemical Selectivity

Chemical selectivity is a problem of where the components react. Since the chain has two ends, the amino acids can add to either end of the chain. Even if by some magical process, a single amino acid "B" would react first as desired for the pre-determined life supporting sequence followed by a single amino acid "A," the product would be a mixture of at least four isomers because there are two ends to the chain. If there is an equal chance of amino acid "B" reacting in two different locations, then half will react at one end, half at the other end. The result of adding "B" will form two different products. When the addition of amino acid "A" occurs, it will react at both ends of the chain of both the products already present. As in the previous example, the major products would be R-T-X-B-A and A-R-T-X-B as well as A-B-R-T-X and B-R-T-X-A and others. The result is a mixture of several isomers of which the desired sequence seldom results, and this is the problem with only two amino acids reacting. As the third amino acid is added, it can react at both ends of four products, and so on, insuring randomness, not a precise sequence.

Selective reading for you on prions, please read up.

Tompa, Peter, and et. al. "Prion protein: Evolution caught en route." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 (8)(2001): 4431-4436.

Partridge, Linda, and Nicholas H. Barton. "Natural Selection: Evolving evolvability." Nature 407(2000): 457-458.

Queitsch, C., T. A. Sangster and S. Lindquist, 2002 Hsp90 as a capacitor of phenotypic variation. Nature 417: 618–624.

Mead, Simon, and et al.. "Balancing Selection at the Prion Protein Gene Consistent with Prehistoric Kurulike Epidemics." Science 300(2003):

Pennisi, Elizabeth , and et al.. "GENE EVOLUTION: Cannibalism and Prion Disease May Have Been Rampant in Ancient Humans." Science 300(2003): 227-228.

Well have to continue later I told someone from my lab I would cover a class for them tonight.

Prion evolution is interesting... mutation creating havoc not?

Miller-Urey is an important experiment because it shows under early earth like conditions organic compounds can form. That is important if you cannot see why then you are blinding yourself with bias.

Fair enough, why not include information about reaction constants for peptide formation under abiotic conditions, AND include information on ratio of the products that are formed in these Miller-Urey-type experiments and let students decide for themselves? Bit biased at the moment dont you think?

I remember way back in High School biology learning about it, no one said this is the way life had to arise. The most important part of the experiment is that inorganic compounds under early earth conditions can form organics. Its an example that adds more evidence to huge pile for a natural beginning.

It can form a lot more organics than just the few necessary needed for life. Again where is evidence that natural selection selected molecules that were conducive to the formation of life. Huge pile of evidence for a natural beginning? You must be invoking the multiverse story to make the probabilities look less important.

If organic molecules can form, its like more and more complex ones can form. Now before you blurt out your normal rantings, more complex ones have not been demonstrated via experimentation, but again that is not to say it wont happen. Just unknown at the moment.

And don't forget the Chemical Stability, Chemical Reactivity and Chemical Selectivity issues.

As for the second part, again I think that you are letting your grudge blind you. Saying "Look we can see through experimentation that inorganic molecules can form organic ones under early earth conditions, and this is a strong indication that life had a natural beginning" is hardly misleading. Misleading is saying "Look, we have tons and tons and tons of evidence in support of evolution and other natural theories, but because they are theories we should disregard them and believe a supernatural entity started all life."

Its more like:"We have so much knowledge about organic chemistry and biochemistry (although incomplete), how can one possibly believe life just formed by chance"? Whatever hypothesis you adhere to e.g. DNA first, protein first, RNA world, metabolome first etc...

You said cells were irreducible, I simple showed you things that were smaller than cells. I am going to type this the last time to you since you obviously have a grudge against evolution and will not listen to anything anyway.

We don't know the precursors to the cell that does not mean we wont find them nor does it mean a natural beginning to life is wrong. Lack of knowledge does not disprove a theory. Rutherford found the proton in 1918, Protons are made of quarks, which were not discovered till the 60's. This does not mean in 1958 "proton theory" should have been abandoned because 40 years went by and we did not know the fundamental components of protons. It only meant we had more work to do.

And work should continue in the abiogenesis area, but you cant proclaim "life formed through abiogenesis" as fact.

Suggesting because we don't know the precursor at this time means natural beginnings are wrong is a logical fallacy.

Saying it is a fact just because you adhere to philosophical naturalism is also a logical fallacy.

Me

Ever seen an erythrocyte or platelet replicate. They are functional for a short period of time then degrades. Erythrocytes and platelets start out as erythroid progenitor and megakaryocyte progenitor cells. They have nice and functioning DNA that enables erythrocyte or platelets to form.

You

Again I told you I am done with this games. You showed your lack of knowledge and said a cell had to have DNA to be functional. Erythrocytes are a perfect example of a cell that is functional without DNA. Functionality does not mean alive, they are two different things. Functional means a cell is able to carry out its tasks, to function. Life means you need to reproduce with fidelity this is why a virus is not alive, but Natural selection still works on a virus.

You are perfectly capable of understanding that DNA was needed for the erythrocytes to gain their functionality without it. So yes, ALL cells/life need DNA. Edited October 14, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Fearisgood]

Actually it does. Natural is the only explanation there is. Your simple example there (which by the way you really need to lay off the ID think tank websites) is totally irrelevant. A person (who by the way is not supernatural) is intelligent because of evolution, the person dropping the axe can do so because of evolution, that has nothing to do with life starting.I see what you are trying to do, illustrate that life is so complex it implies an intelligent designer but it does not.

And you are trying to show that the incredible complexity of life is the result of pure chance, and then give this "bird" metaphor...

I attempted to explain this to one of your contemporaries here on the forum So I will go ahead and quote myself to save time. This is a metaphor.

QUOTE(Me)

These rules in themselves are not very complicated but allow for a great deal of variation. I think a good metaphor is birds flocking. Birds, when they flock have no intelligent leader, no intelligence behind the movements themselves, instead each bird is bound by a simple set of laws that make flocking appear, nonrandom and guided. These rules are things like; keep another bird 2 feet from your wing, do not bump into another bird, relay position to other birds by chirping, if you fall away from the flock, then catch back up, etc etc etc...

These are just simple examples but you get the point. B/c of the basic set of rules shared by each bird the mechanism of flocking appears guided by an intelligent agency. This is much the same way that artificial neural networks work. You would think the computer you are observing is smart and is has been programed for every possible situation, when in fact a simple set of rules allows for complex behaviors.

However, it does not appear to be guided by an intelligent agency, the birds have their own intelligence. Molecules however, don't have their own intelligence, but follow certain laws, and they just don't fall into place to form life in abiotic conditions, unless you invoke the multiverse story and time-god.

The axe is a poor example and does imply intelligence. But it is not like evolution at all.

The axe metaphor is in the same vain as the "bird" metaphor.

Ill ask you where is the mountains of evidence for your theory of life?

God's incredibly complex universe. Big enough?

Comparing a signal from an extraterrestrial civilization and a designer of life is, well, just plain silly. Cells are also not irreducibly complex. IC means if you take away one of the parts the whole system is incapable of preforming its function. We already talked about erythrocytes, they preform their function just fine missing integral parts of the cell, so do many other cells and things less than cells.

Again, you are perfectly capable of understanding that DNA was needed for the erythrocytes to gain their functionality without it. Yes, DNA is still needed for erythrocyte formation...an integral part...

IC would be like the example Behe gave, the bacterial flagellum. He thought if you took away one of the parts the whole was non functional. We all know where that went. (Type III secretory system anyone?)

Take away DNA and erythrocytes wont form. Isn't the type III secretory system phylogenetically younger than the flagellum? So... Flagellum first then the secretory system? Reverse evolution?

This is getting silly, if you dont know how to debate properly then stop. You attempt to run in circles and its really silly, I am trying to be patient here.

Yes this is silly, you keep giving irrelevant examples or don't want to discuss their relevance. Patients is a virtue.

The problem with most of your arguments and things you spew is you are doing them at a sub BS level biology education. (If you have a BS in biology or a relevant biology field ask for your money back). You make statements like this that are not true or not nearly that simple. A reader would assume a chaperone would be needed for all protein folding. This is not the case, tertiary folding happens fine with out chaperones. Actually lots of large proteins are folded without chaperones. Look it up. So if you want scientific credibility in your arguments get the science right.

Yes, a reader would assume chaperones would be needed for all protein folding the i put. Apologies. Chaperones are needed for protein folding for a lot of proteins (although a minority), but not all. It is also important to know that protein folding occurs in an osmotically-controlled, pH-controlled and temperature-controlled environment in the cell. Does the same protein-configuration persist if one of these parameters change?

Its not, very low percentage of oxygen is just fine, the atmosphere is a large place and the second atmosphere would have very little oxygen. It was a reducing atmosphere. I would not worry you are here typing on your computer aren't you.

Yep im here, because of chance random process... nope, i don't think so. Thats just me. Edited October 14, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Fearisgood]

Again I was correcting one of your statements. Getting a spark from lightning for some kind of electrical energy input does not mean everywhere on earth is being hit by lightning at once (which you implied when you said

QUOTE(me)

Aminoacids can´t be built in the presence of an uncontrolled source of energy

)

Quote(you)

You do not know the exact conditions of early earth therefore at the current realm of knowledge it is impossible to say that.

We can setup a range of experiments to test various conditions.

No I am not, I am saying by our second atmosphere our magnetosphere helped protect the planet much more than the first.

Do we know this to be a fact? Is our current knowledge and science complete enough to quantify our magnetosphere a few billions of years ago?

Get your science right, aminoacids can be built in the presence of heat, extreme heat to be exact.

Controlled or uncrontrolled extreme heat?

Actually you should not have said that, not at all even with "very high percentage" added on. We dont know every protein, so we can't even begin to guess the percentages of those without cysteine.

Do a BLAST search and work out the percentage...

If you say so. Again no one is forcing you to accept evolution, die wallowing in your ignorance, it is your choice.

Phew, emotions Hope you dont die wallowing in your dogmatic, close-mindedness of philosophic naturalism. I choose to be open-minded and not discount the possibility of design.

I took the liberty of looking up the article mentioned above by Fearisgood regarding the "Ghadiri protein." The original article is: "A Chiroselective Peptide Replicator" by M. Reza Ghadiri, principal investigator, co-authored by Alan Saghatelian, Yohei Yokobayashi and Kathy Soltani. The article was published in "Nature," but I did not get the date and issue. A news release on the research was issued on February 15, 2001, so the artical probably appeared shortly before that date. Contact people are Keith McKeown, kmckeown@scripps.edu and Kathleen Burton kburton@mail.arc.nasa.gov.

Ghadiri regards his work as supporting evolution. He does not say that life originated in THIS way, only that this is one possible way. The molecule self-replicates, distinguishes beween two possible component pieces and corrects errors in incorrect stereomers.

Only if you add a constant supply of two peptides, one is 17 amino acids long and the other is 15 amino acids long. The sequences are very specific and the chance of chance formation is about 20^-32 for each one. That is if you discount Chemical Stability, Chemical Reactivity and Chemical Selectivity issues.

If reproduction is the definition of life, then the evolution of life from non-living precursors has been proven.

It has? Only if you add a constant supply of very specific peptides to a specific mixture. Is that enough proof for you? Have faith i say.

It appears that Fearisgood has misunderstood the article, or is making his own interpretation (To do that would require access to Ghadiri's data and researchers are notoriously reluctant to share their data.).

Every possible strategy of interference was employed by Ghadiri to promote replication...

The problem of protecting amide linkages from hydrolysis in water solutions was solved in 1932 by Max Bergmann and Leonidas Zervas at the University of Berlin. Part of the solution was to conduct the reaction at high temperature (200 degress C., almost 400 degrees F.). This supports the idea that life originated in the vicinity of hot springs on the ocean floor. The hormone oxytocin was synthesized this way in the early 1950s. Synthetic insulin (51 amino acide sequences) is made this way.

Under controlled conditions...

Apparently, there are ways for peptides to self-replicate in the presence of water.

--DJS

Yep, under controlled, intelligently designed conditions. Not naturally in prebiotic conditions...

Two articles of the metabolome hypothesis... most likely way for abiogenesis i think... Possible? Nah, do some more research.

1) Wächtershäuser G. Evolution of the first metabolic cycles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Jan;87(1):200-4.

2) Kalapos MP. The energetics of the reductive citric acid cycle in the pyrite-pulled surface metabolism in the early stage of evolution. J Theor Biol. 2007 Sep 21;248(2):251-8. Epub 2007 May 8.

Wonder how most neo-Darwinists reacted to the findings by ENCODE?

News

Original release by NIH

Published articles

Finding out that a large portion of so-called junk DNA actually transcribes RNA.

Bit of a slap in the face for the theory is it not? neo-Darwinism predicts junk DNA does it not...? But dont worry, im sure neo-Darwinism will incorporate it into the theory and later say, "ah but we actually predicted it".

Arthur Hunt is of the opinion that all that extra transcribed DNA is just, as he put it, "junk RNA". We will have to wait and see. But i don't see how the cost of transcribing all that extra RNA by RNA polymerase, only to be removed by "Garbage Disposal", will have any selective advantage.

Gene regulation and/or gene silencing by siRNA and/or microRNA are distinct possibilities. Another possibility is it is necessary to make RNA in order to break it down. All kinds of possibilities... maybe the "junk DNA theory of evolution" might also be laid to rest.

On the bacterial flagellum... Seems like story-telling is being peer-reviewed AND published, no matter how absurd it sounds, as long as it supports a Darwinian view, it will get published. And it is possible that a lot of that is going around.

Prof Nick Matzke thinks this article is a "dog", but still it went through peer-review AND got published in PNAS (he was not one of the reviewers though). Here have a read. Prof Matzke is doing some good research on flagellum evolution, we will just have to wait and see if his model stands.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Fearisgood

[camlax]

Have you really been brooding over this for months?

At least we know anything spontaneously appearing with 500 bits of information (even 150) cannot reasonably be attributed to chance and happen more than once. So i guess you are going for the "metabolome first" hypothesis.

Define information.

Saying it cannot be "attributed to chance" is a silly argument. Look let me say it simple: You don't know how it happened, therefore you cannot start ruling things out.

My quote

You You know i am talking about prebiotic conditions. And i will ask you again: Explain how natural selection worked on a molecular level in prebiotic conditions in a way that only selected molecules that were conducive to the formation of life, and then give an appropriate example. Also consider the following.

Natural selection does not require a cell to work on. Natural selection requires differential survival, reproduction and source for variation (at least partially conserved from generation to generation). You, like many others, mistake the current biological definition of life as being the requirements for NS.

Fair enough, why not include information about reaction constants for peptide formation under abiotic conditions, AND include information on ratio of the products that are formed in these Miller-Urey-type experiments and let students decide for themselves? Bit biased at the moment dont you think?

Not really, Miller-Urey is just stated that it is possible for basic AA's to form under early earth conditions. That is all the experiment is designed to show. When I learned about our teacher never said "THIS IS HOW LIFE STARTED, IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED LIKE THIS". I think it is a little more biased to say "We don't know so god must have done it".

It can form a lot more organics than just the few necessary needed for life. Again where is evidence that natural selection selected molecules that were conducive to the formation of life. Huge pile of evidence for a natural beginning? You must be invoking the multiverse story to make the probabilities look less important.

Do you get off on not understanding anything you read? Organic molecules being able to form under abiotic conditions supports life probably had a natural origin. Look, you make this silly argument of probability, and it seems to be your short falling. We know all sorts of things happened in science that had less than favorable probabilities, this does not change the fact they happened. Your argument, has to be one of the stupidest I have heard. You want to say "we dont know" then say "the probability was too great". Do you understand that? You cannot profess to not know something, then conclude the probabilities were too great.

And don't forget the Chemical Stability, Chemical Reactivity and Chemical Selectivity issues.

Fearisgood, I am a physicist, being so I have actually had a lot of chemistry. Atoms and molecules react differently under various conditions. By your reckoning we would have no compounds containing Noble Gases. Thankfully, we are not in the dark ages anymore, and not everyone is so ignorant of the chemical world as you. We do have many compounds and complexes that contain Noble gases, why? Because the reaction conditions permit such reactions, even with the most stable and non reactive atoms known to us.

Its more like:"We have so much knowledge about organic chemistry and biochemistry (although incomplete), how can one possibly believe life just formed by chance"? Whatever hypothesis you adhere to e.g. DNA first, protein first, RNA world, metabolome first etc...

You "chance" blathering again, see the above address.

And work should continue in the abiogenesis area, but you cant proclaim "life formed through abiogenesis" as fact. Saying it is a fact just because you adhere to philosophical naturalism is also a logical fallacy.

Whos proclaiming it as fact you psycho?

[camlax]

And you are trying to show that the incredible complexity of life is the result of pure chance, and then give this "bird" metaphor...

See the above about arguing the "chances" are impossible when something is unknown. Also, the bird metaphor is an example of how people ignorant of workings, like yourself, can come to the wrong conclusions. Birds flocking have no intelligence behind the driver seat, a simple set of rules govern the complex behavior. The chemical interactions that perpetuate life are a simple set of rules that govern behavior that appears complex and guided.

However, it does not appear to be guided by an intelligent agency, the birds have their own intelligence. Molecules however, don't have their own intelligence, but follow certain laws, and they just don't fall into place to form life in abiotic conditions, unless you invoke the multiverse story and time-god.

The axe metaphor is in the same vain as the "bird" metaphor.

God's incredibly complex universe. Big enough?

The birds having their own intelligence is irrelevant to the example. The birds do not flock by complex though, they do it by a simple set of initial conditions built into each bird. Just like molecules react in manners based on initial conditions and the physical laws that govern the universe. Saying the universe is complex is not proof of a designer. If you want to believe that, then that is fine, you are wrong however.

Again, you are perfectly capable of understanding that DNA was needed for the erythrocytes to gain their functionality without it. Yes, DNA is still needed for erythrocyte formation...an integral part... Take away DNA and erythrocytes wont form.

Go back and look up your quote, was this the point of you necro-posting? Hoping that people would forget your original silly arguments? You stated that things could not be functional without DNA.

Isn't the type III secretory system phylogenetically younger than the flagellum? So... Flagellum first then the secretory system? Reverse evolution?

Of course arguing to prove your religious views are correct I do not expect you to use the most current information.

Please read

Type III secretion systems (TTSS) are unique bacterial mechanisms that mediate elaborate interactions with their hosts. The fact that several of the TTSS proteins are closely related to flagellar export proteins has led to the suggestion that TTSS had evolved from flagella. Here we reconstruct the evolutionary history of four conserved type III secretion proteins and their phylogenetic relationships with flagellar paralogs. Our analysis indicates that the TTSS and the flagellar export mechanism share a common ancestor, but have evolved independently from one another. The suggestion that TTSS genes have evolved from genes encoding flagellar proteins is effectively refuted. A comparison of the species tree, as deduced from 16S rDNA sequences, to the protein phylogenetic trees has led to the identification of several major lateral transfer events involving clusters of TTSS genes. It is hypothesized that horizontal gene transfer has occurred much earlier and more frequently than previously inferred for TTSS genes and is, consequently, a major force shaping the evolution of species that harbor type III secretion systems

Gophna, U., Ron, E. Z. and Graur, D., 2003. Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events. Gene. 312, 151-163

Yes this is silly, you keep giving irrelevant examples or don't want to discuss their relevance. Patients is a virtue.

Your the one posting in months old threads hoping to get the last word or that your initial plagiarisms would be forgotten.

Yes, a reader would assume chaperones would be needed for all protein folding the i put. Apologies. Chaperones are needed for protein folding for a lot of proteins (although a minority), but not all. It is also important to know that protein folding occurs in an osmotically-controlled, pH-controlled and temperature-controlled environment in the cell. Does the same protein-configuration persist if one of these parameters change?

Yep im here, because of chance random process... nope, i don't think so. Thats just me.

Typical anti-evolution gusto. You guys always tend to argue with outdated information and incorrect interpretations. Least you apologized.

[Fearisgood]

Have you really been brooding over this for months?

Read it, got side-tracked, forgot about that's all... Thought it would be a good thing to discuss a few points again and off course witness some shameless, unwarranted ad hominens. And you didn't disappoint...

Whos proclaiming it as fact you psycho?

You seem to think that the case is closed...

...There is no rash conclusion being drawn that life began naturally,...

Define information.

Shannon information theory? Shannon information is solely concerned with the improbability or complexity of a string of characters rather than its patterning or significance. Just not how Dawkins sees it, more like t h is.

The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed 10^-50 as a universal probability bound below which chance could definitely be precluded, i.e., any specified event as improbable as this could not be attributed to chance. That translates into 150 bits of information. 500 bits of information is much more conservative.

Reference

Borel, Emile. 1962. Probabilities and Life, translated by M. Baudin. New York: Dover.

Saying it cannot be "attributed to chance" is a silly argument. Look let me say it simple: You don't know how it happened, therefore you cannot start ruling things out.

But you want to conclude life is the result of chance?

Natural selection does not require a cell to work on. Natural selection requires differential survival, reproduction and source for variation (at least partially conserved from generation to generation). You, like many others, mistake the current biological definition of life as being the requirements for NS.

I specifically asked how natural selection worked on a molecular level in prebiotic conditions. Off course natural selection is not restricted to life, where did i say it is? You need natural selection for abiogenesis to work. Evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next whereby natural selection acts on and plays a role. Agreed? Genes are just the replicators in living organisms on which natural selection acts. If you were to apply this notion on an abiotic milieu, simple replicating molecules would be the "genes" whereby natural selection can act upon. Agreed?

Not really, Miller-Urey is just stated that it is possible for basic AA's to form under early earth conditions. That is all the experiment is designed to show. When I learned about our teacher never said "THIS IS HOW LIFE STARTED, IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED LIKE THIS". I think it is a little more biased to say "We don't know so god must have done it".

Basic AA's and a host of other organic material. Why not include that information? What is the next logical step after AA formation? Peptide formation? If not, why give the experiment as an example. Give the experiment as an example with THE REST of the RELEVANT information.

Do you get off on not understanding anything you read? Organic molecules being able to form under abiotic conditions supports life probably had a natural origin. Look, you make this silly argument of probability, and it seems to be your short falling.

Nope this is where you fall short, you dont want to address probability, instead you will give one of the following excuses.

1. There is no purpose to life... therefore DNA sequences have no purpose.

2. Vastly improbable events occur every day. For example, the likelihood of you

meeting a particular person on a particular street at a particular time is nearly

zero, yet it happens.

3. Even if life is vastly improbable, there is an infinity of space in the universe,

and we just happen to be residing on the one planet where the vastly

improbable occurred.

4. It is folly to try and calculate probabilty of evolution of the complexities of

nature. There are too many unknowns.

Life exhibits purpose, purpose can be defined in mathematical terms.

Life represents order rather than randomness.

Don't confuse order with randomness.

We know all sorts of things happened in science that had less than favorable probabilities, this does not change the fact they happened. Your argument, has to be one of the stupidest I have heard. You want to say "we dont know" then say "the probability was too great". Do you understand that? You cannot profess to not know something, then conclude the probabilities were too great.

We dont know yes, yet you want to conclude naturalism explains life? Probability calculations are meaningful, its precisely these calculations that prevent abiogenesis hypotheses from becoming accepted as truth. Dawkins:

We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too much.... In our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has, as its upper limit, the number of eligible planets in the universe.... We [therefore] have at our disposal, if we want to use it, odds of 1 in 100 billion billion as an upper limit (or 1 in however many available planets we think there are) to spend in our theory of the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory. Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one. [Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," Norton: (New York, 1987, pp. 139,145-46]

Edited October 14, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Fearisgood]

Fearisgood, I am a physicist, being so I have actually had a lot of chemistry. Atoms and molecules react differently under various conditions.

Any conditions you think might be suitable for the formation of life?

By your reckoning we would have no compounds containing Noble Gases.

Dont know where you pull that strawman from?

Thankfully, we are not in the dark ages anymore, and not everyone is so ignorant of the chemical world as you. We do have many compounds and complexes that contain Noble gases, why? Because the reaction conditions permit such reactions, even with the most stable and non reactive atoms known to us.

Please inform me how you think life might have formed, im curious to see which hypothesis sounds the best to you. You obviously dont know, no-one knows, but which one sounds like the best hypothesis to you?

See the above about arguing the "chances" are impossible when something is unknown. Also, the bird metaphor is an example of how people ignorant of workings, like yourself, can come to the wrong conclusions. Birds flocking have no intelligence behind the driver seat, a simple set of rules govern the complex behavior. The chemical interactions that perpetuate life are a simple set of rules that govern behavior that appears complex and guided.

And the reactions in abiogenesis hypotheses are also governed by the same simple set of rules. Hence probability calculations.

Go back and look up your quote, was this the point of you necro-posting? Hoping that people would forget your original silly arguments? You stated that things could not be functional without DNA.

Erythrocytes will never form and hence wont even function if it was not for DNA. Get it?

Your the one posting in months old threads hoping to get the last word or that your initial plagiarisms would be forgotten.

Whats wrong with getting the thread going again? So-called acts of plagiarism are there for all to inspect. Apologies if i did in fact unwittingly commit plagiarism. Judges?

Im also interested what everybody think of the ENCODE results and certain researchers' obsession to "disprove" the "non-issue" of Intelligent design and go so far as to publish absolute rubbish just because it supports neo-Darwinism.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Doug1029]

And the reactions in abiogenesis hypotheses are also governed by the same simple set of rules. Hence probability calculations.

I have been looking up some of the references you gave way back when. For the most-part, the articles either do not mention evolution at all, or the authors feel that their work supports evolution. Some of the "problems" you cite were solved decades ago.

After saying that I wasn't going to let you stampede me with numbers and probability, I let you do it. Turns out, life is a lot more probable than your miscalculations suggest (You used the wrong formula.). After such an ardent defense of your position, to lose it all to a math error ....

I will keep working on the references given by both you and camlax, but as of now, you arwen't doing too well.

DJS

[Fearisgood]

I have been looking up some of the references you gave way back when. For the most-part, the articles either do not mention evolution at all, or the authors feel that their work supports evolution. Some of the "problems" you cite were solved decades ago.

Weren't the problems (peptide polymerization?) solved under very specific controlled conditions? E.g. certain catalysts, specific temperatures, specific amounts of reactants, solvents etc.? Im not sure, can you at least give an example how it was solved and how one can apply that knowledge in natural, uncontrolled, prebiotic conditions? Give a reference please, ill search, thank you.

EDIT: Is it perhaps Native chemical ligation techniques? Hardly prebiotic conditions dont you think?

After saying that I wasn't going to let you stampede me with numbers and probability, I let you do it. Turns out, life is a lot more probable than your miscalculations suggest (You used the wrong formula.). After such an ardent defense of your position, to lose it all to a math error ....

I will keep working on the references given by both you and camlax, but as of now, you arwen't doing too well.

The calculations: (check post #137)

1) Polymerization can´t be done in the presence of water.

Without controlled measures being applied...

1) A pool of two peptides, one is 17 amino acids long and the other is 15 amino acids long is needed for replication.

arg-met-lys-gln-lys-glu-glu-lys-val-tyr-glu-lys-lys-ser-lys-val-ala

cys-leu-glu-tyr-glu-val-ala-arg-leu-lys-lys-leu-val-gly-glu

The peptide sequences need to be exact, what are the odds of forming a pool of peptides of this length with those exact sequences in a prebiotic environment, all obviously in a close vicinity to each other?

Every possible strategy of interference is employed by this investigator to promote replication. Do you think an "investigator" was present in the prebiotic soup?

Edited October 15, 2007 by Fearisgood

[camlax]

Any conditions you think might be suitable for the formation of life?

Dont know where you pull that strawman from?

Please inform me how you think life might have formed, im curious to see which hypothesis sounds the best to you. You obviously dont know, no-one knows, but which one sounds like the best hypothesis to you?

And the reactions in abiogenesis hypotheses are also governed by the same simple set of rules. Hence probability calculations.

Erythrocytes will never form and hence wont even function if it was not for DNA. Get it?

Whats wrong with getting the thread going again? So-called acts of plagiarism are there for all to inspect. Apologies if i did in fact unwittingly commit plagiarism. Judges?

Im also interested what everybody think of the ENCODE results and certain researchers' obsession to "disprove" the "non-issue" of Intelligent design and go so far as to publish absolute rubbish just because it supports neo-Darwinism.

Fearisgood,

I am not sure what the point of continuing this debate with you is...

You, like other creationists here at UM, want to argue evolution is wrong on the basis of abiogenesis. Much akin to me arguing why Wave-Particle duality is wrong, based on the lack of finding the graviton.

Let me replay it for you.

You think you are disproving evolution by arguing that we don't know how life started....

If you cannot see why that is wrong and logical fallacy then you are beyond help, and probably the ability to critically think as well.

The lack of knowing how exactly life started does (in no way, shape or form) disprove evolution. What it does do however, is shows you are one amongst a whole little group of creationists that lack the ability of something we here in the real world call 'free thought'. As you sit here and regurgitate your plagiarized and out of context works, take some satisfaction in the fact that we don't know how life started, so however implausible, your god could have had a hand in it.

If you wish to make a new thread on Abiogenesis, I would be more than happy to come over to that and point out your plagiarisms and out of context citations, otherwise please post your "enlightening" information on why evolution is incorrect, rather than a different scientific theory/hypothesis.

Edited October 16, 2007 by camlax

[DogsHead]

That may be, but I will roll over in my grave when we create somthing from nothing. Its all faith... I will not burn or flame for your faith but I am just expressing mine, along with facts that support it.

I haven't read all the way through the thread yet, but wondered if you were getting ready to roll, dark arc....

Have a look...

[Wookietim]

That may be, but I will roll over in my grave when we create somthing from nothing. Its all faith... I will not burn or flame for your faith but I am just expressing mine, along with facts that support it.

Actually, you are not expressing facts that support or disprove either side - you are expressing beliefs, which your faith has turned into facts to you.

The main crux of your argument is that the big bang could not have created the universe from nothing. That is not actually what that theory says - perhaps you should take a look at it. What the basic idea behind the theory says is that all matter in the universe was already present, simply condensed into a super-dense area. Therefore the conservation of energy has not been violated....

[Fearisgood]

Fearisgood,

I am not sure what the point of continuing this debate with you is...

You, like other creationists here at UM, want to argue evolution is wrong on the basis of abiogenesis. Much akin to me arguing why Wave-Particle duality is wrong, based on the lack of finding the graviton.

Well, since the title of this thread is "Evolution:", and you know evolution covers a wide variety of possibilities and Biological evolution (Modern Evolutionary synthesis) is not the only topic covered by "Evolution:".

Read:

Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1967), “Changing Man,” Science, 155:409, January 27

An evolutionist need not be a Pangloss of a Pollyanna; he may recognize that the absurd is widespread. Evolution is not predestined to promote always the good and the beautiful. Nevertheless, evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the Cosmos, become conscious of itself. This opens at least a possibility that evolution may some day be directed by man, and that the prevalence of the absurd may be cut down.

Evolution comprises all the stages of development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.

Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life (1967, 155:409).

Emphasis mine.

Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.

Let me replay it for you.

You think you are disproving evolution by arguing that we don't know how life started....

Actually, im only trying to show that the belief that many atheists hold that life just happened to start in primordial ooze is not exactly faith-free... Nothing wrong with having a bit of faith i say

If you cannot see why that is wrong and logical fallacy then you are beyond help, and probably the ability to critically think as well.

If we dont know how it happened, AND our knowledge tells us (although incomplete) that abiogenesis reactions favoring life seems, well rare, have some faith i say .

The lack of knowing how exactly life started does (in no way, shape or form) disprove evolution.

You must mean biological evolution (Modern Evolutionary synthesis). Correct then.

What it does do however, is shows you are one amongst a whole little group of creationists that lack the ability of something we here in the real world call 'free thought'.

Free thought... thats rich, you seem like a close-minded naturalist, dogmatic to the bone, thinking that ONLY natural forces can give rise to complexity and life (thats just my opinion). Antony Flew seems open-minded, and full of free thought...

If you wish to make a new thread on Abiogenesis, I would be more than happy to come over to that and point out your plagiarisms and out of context citations, otherwise please post your "enlightening" information on why evolution is incorrect, rather than a different scientific theory/hypothesis.

If i have some time ill try and make a thread...

Now concerning Biological evolution, i have a few questions concerning deleterious mutation rates. (Partially covered here, )

In 2000, the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) was calculated (using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection) to be at least 3 [1]. This was done by comparing only pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees. U value estimates in Escherichia coli, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans were estimated (using observable living organisms, not a hypothetical common ancestor model) to be 0.0002, 0.2-1 and 0.005 respectively[3,4,5]. For U =3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, meaning each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects given by 1-e^U [6]. Can this be reconciled with current observation? Synergistic epistasis and truncation selection are added as ad hoc explanations for this high U-value, and it seems unlikely that it is the case as well [8].

The way indels are calculated in the deleterious mutation rate is also a topic of discussion. Indels give a 90MB difference (by far the biggest) but only 5 million length mutation (indels) events are incorporated into the deleterious mutation calculation.

Larger insertions (> 15 kb) were identified in 163 human regions containing 8.3 Mb of the human-specific sequence and a whopping 73% (approx. 70,000) of the indels are larger than 80 bp. That alone should be cause for concern because supposedly junk DNA also gets transcribed. The recent findings by ENCODE found that cells also make RNA copies of many other sections of DNA and none of the extra RNA fragments gets translated into proteins [7]. And it does not seem that they are produced by darwinian accident. They might be functioning like microRNA’s or RNAi’s (RNA interference)[7]. The notion that some DNA might be “junk” or leftovers of evolution is an evolutionary ignorant idea. Thing is, we don’t know the function, but it does not mean it is useless. This is the “vestigial organ” myth all over again.

Also, length mutations (indels) have the lowest mutation rate at 2.3 x 10^-9. They are 10 times less common than single substitutions.

If each of the 90MB indel difference was calculated as a single mutation, the U-value would be disastrous for the hypothesis. The already extremely high U-value would be unexplainable. With an ever increasing "functional" genome, there will be less and less "junk DNA" for random harmful mutations to "hide", adding to the the problems of the already high deleterious mutation rate.

The problem is simple enough, since our common ancestor there would have had to be 35 million single base substitutions. That comes to 140 per diploid generation (7 per year) for 5 million years. That is in addition to and average of 1 indel 14 base pairs long per year for the same amount of time and the vast majority of these would have to be fixed. FIXED being the operative word. Reconcile this with observation.

For information on the actual differences between Humans and chimps read:

Kehrer-Sawatzki H, Cooper DN. Understanding the recent evolution of the human genome: insights from human-chimpanzee genome comparisons. Hum Mutat. 2007 Feb;28(2):99-130

Also, Neo-Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolution, and mutation merely provides raw genetic materials with which natural selection produces novel characters [9 first paragraph]. However it is believed more emphasis should be given on the roles of mutation in the study of evolution, especially understanding phenotypic evolution [9]. Reading this, i cant help but think that the observed ratio of beneficial mutations to harmful mutations should be increased... Look what mutations do.

1. Nachman MW, Crowell SL. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics. 2000 Sep;156(1):297-304.

2. Thread

3. Kibota, T. T., and M. Lynch, 1996 Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli. Nature 381: 694-696.

4. Fry, J. D., P. D. Keightley, S. L. Heinsohn and S. V. Nuzhdin, 1999 New estimates of the rates and effects of mildly deleterious

mutation in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 96: 574–579

5. Keightley, P. D., and A. Caballero, 1997 Genomic mutation rates for lifetime reproductive output and lifespan in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 3823–3827.

6. Kimura, M., 1968 Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature. 217: 624–626

7. Andy Coghlan. 'Junk' DNA makes compulsive reading. New Scientist 194.2608 (June 16, 2007): p20(1).

8. Reed FA, Aquadro CF. Mutation, selection and the future of human evolution. Trends Genet. 2006 Sep;22(9):479-84.

9. Nei M. The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jul 24;104(30):12235-42.

And on the topic of brain evolution (not only brain evolution though), here is an interesting debate

Ill lift out a few points:

Highly conserved genes would have had to undergo a major overhaul with no known molecular mechanism. Eg the 118-bp HAR1 region.

This regulatory gene would have had to have 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene that has only had 2 since the Cambrian explosion.

You can argue that it was a slow accumulation of single nucleotide substitutions, but look at the facts. This is regulatory gene (highly conserved as mentioned) and is located at chromosome 20q13.33.

Go to the Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer and pick any chromosome and look at what SNP's do. Diseases, Alzheimers, Parkinsons etc.

Here are a few examples:

1) Prediction of individual genetic risk to disease from genome-wide association studies. Genome Res. 2007 Sep 4

2) rs1004819 Is the Main Disease-Associated IL23R Variant in German Crohn's Disease Patients: Combined Analysis of IL23R, CARD15, and OCTN1/2 Variants. PLoS ONE. 2007 Sep 5;2(9):e819.

3) Association and linkage studies of the 20q11.2 region (GRD-2 locus) with Graves' disease in the Tunisian population.Ann Hum Biol. 2007 Sep-Oct;34(5):566-72.

4) TP73 allelic expression in human brain and allele frequencies in Alzheimer's disease, BMC Med Genet. 2004 Jun 2;5:14

5) Subtelomere FISH in 50 children with mental r******ation and minor anomalies, identified by a checklist, detects 10 rearrangements including a de novo balanced translocation of chromosomes 17p13.3 and 20q13.33. Am J Med Genet A. 2004 Aug 1;128(4):364-73.

6) Human brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) genes, splicing patterns, and assessments of associations with substance abuse and Parkinson's Disease. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2005 Apr 5;134(1):93-103.

These are just a few. Go to Pubmed and search "SNP disease".

So what is the argument for evolution from a common ancestor on a molecular basis?

Differences:

Kehrer-Sawatzki H, Cooper DN. Understanding the recent evolution of the human genome: insights from human-chimpanzee genome comparisons. Hum Mutat. 2007 Feb;28(2):99-130

35 million single nucleotide difference

90 million Indels

20MB of chromosomal differences including microinversions, pericentric inversions, so-called fusion (or split, who knows). Microsatellite and Triplet Repeat Expansion (dont know what the explnation is for this one?), considerable number of structural differences the subtelomeric regions, copy number differences in subtelomeric segments (Human subtelomeric regions were massively rearranged after the supposed divergence) etc...

The argument:

The above-mentioned differences accumulated through disease causing mutations AND got fixed in just 5-6 million years AND supposedly gave a selection advantage?

That's not an argument, that is one of the strongest arguments against a common ancestor. Im looking for a similar chart where it shows the positive nature of mutations (NOT the neutral nature), or at least a some indication that we are not going to turn into soup if we mutate too much.

EDIT: I'm off for two weeks... holiday.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Fearisgood