Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 1:14 AM
338 online now:
Coyote, edge, Faith (3 members, 335 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,195 Year: 23,801/21,208 Month: 1,766/2,468 Week: 275/822 Day: 1/67 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Points for a creator (Alaninnont and Subbie only)
subbie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 46 of 65 (504915)
04-04-2009 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by alaninnont
04-04-2009 9:09 AM


quote:
The earth is millions or billions of years old.

Billions, 4.54 billion, give or take.

quote:
Simple organisms appeared earliest in earth's history according to fossils and continued in a trend toward more complex organisms.

Well, as you've discovered in a different thread, where life begins is subject to debate, depending on how terms are defined. Most likely the first organisms were very simple ones, but they were preceded by organic molecules. And, while it's true that simple organisms became more complex, don't confuse evolution with gaining complexity.

The earliest organisms were most likely simple because simple organisms were the most likely to appear. And, subsequent organisms became more complex because that was the only direction to move if it all began with simplest. However, there's nothing inherent in the theory of evolution that would necessarily favor the complex over the simple. Evolution is all about reproductive success. If, in a given environment, a more complex organism would have more success, then that organism would flourish. If a simpler organism would do better, then that organism would flourish. There are advantages to each type and disadvantages. But evolution doesn't require or predict a general trend in either direction.

quote:
The DNA/RNA process of replication is universal to all living things on earth.

As I alluded to above, the definition of living is up for grabs. However, I believe that your statement is generally accurate.

quote:
Within a species there can be many phenotypical differences.

Agreed.

quote:
There are cases of similarities in physiology between species. (the digits of the hand in humans as compared to the wings or birds, etc.)

Agreed. As long as we're starting at the beginning, let's begin with the correct terminology. These are referred to as homologous. And there are millions upon millions of such structural similarities found throughout the natural world at all levels.

quote:
The compounds common to life on earth are proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids.

Well, I don't know that I'd agree that all of these compounds are found in all kinds of "life," but I'd agree that those are commonly found.

quote:
There is an incredible variety of life on earth.

I suppose if I were inclined to be pedantic, I might quarrel with the use of the word "incredible" as being rather imprecise. But I'm not, so we'll agree on that one.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by alaninnont, posted 04-04-2009 9:09 AM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by alaninnont, posted 04-05-2009 8:19 AM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 47 of 65 (504928)
04-05-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by subbie
04-04-2009 10:27 PM


Billions, 4.54 billion, give or take.

I'm somewhat skeptical about the accuracy of dating methods. They rely on many assumptions and that is why I covered myself by saying millions or billions. Yes, I know that it is a number that has been thrown around for many years but an inaccuracy many times repeated still makes it an inaccuracy. The peppered moth fallacy is a case in point. I'm not saying that it is incorrect. I am more comfortable saying that the earth is millions or billions years old.

Most likely the first organisms were very simple ones, but they were preceded by organic molecules.

I don't think I'm going to agree with you here. Anything I've seen has indicated that the first organisms were highly complex. By saying "preceded" you seem to be suggesting that the organic molecules needed for a living cell self-assembled which also does not fit observable data.

Well, I don't know that I'd agree that all of these compounds are found in all kinds of "life," but I'd agree that those are commonly found.

Viruses have to be inside a cell that has these four basic molecules to replicate and may not be considered alive. What others are there? Are we not on the same page when we're talking about life? We should perhaps settle which things are alive and which are dead before we proceed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 04-04-2009 10:27 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 04-05-2009 1:16 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 49 by subbie, posted 04-05-2009 1:32 PM alaninnont has responded
 Message 50 by subbie, posted 04-05-2009 1:35 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 48 of 65 (504933)
04-05-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by alaninnont
04-05-2009 8:19 AM


Dating methods
Let's start with dating methods. In his Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, RADZ shows that many different dating methods all arrive at consistent results. So, even assuming there is a sufficient basis for doubting the methods, one also needs to explain how they can all arrive at the same results and still be suspect.

I would ask you to take your doubts to that thread. RAZD's expertise in the area is so far beyond my level of knowledge that I couldn't even begin to answer your questions.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by alaninnont, posted 04-05-2009 8:19 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 49 of 65 (504934)
04-05-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by alaninnont
04-05-2009 8:19 AM


First organisms
quote:
I don't think I'm going to agree with you here. Anything I've seen has indicated that the first organisms were highly complex.

Well, that's rather vague. Please cite me the sources you are referring to.

Also, keep in mind that the term "complex" is a relative term. I'd certainly agree that any living organism is more complex than a single atom. But your statement was

quote:
Simple organisms appeared earliest in earth's history according to fossils and continued in a trend toward more complex organisms.

I took this statement to mean that the organisms that first appeared were simpler than organisms that appeared later. Now, you seem to be changing the context, arguing that the first organisms were "highly complex." Please clarify: do you mean to be comparing early organisms to later organisms, or are you comparing them to something else? If the latter, please explain what comparison you intend to discuss, and why you think such a discussion would be significant.

quote:
By saying "preceded" you seem to be suggesting that the organic molecules needed for a living cell self-assembled which also does not fit observable data.

Again, please cite me the sources that describe the "observable data" that contradicts the idea of organic molecules self-assembling.

Actually, if you read my statement carefully, you'll see that I didn't say anything about how the organic molecules formed. I merely said that they must have preceded the organisms, since that's what the organisms were made of. It seems self-evident to me that the parts that came together to form the first organisms must have been there before the organisms themselves. If you have another idea how this might have happened, I'd be very curious to hear it.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by alaninnont, posted 04-05-2009 8:19 AM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by alaninnont, posted 04-10-2009 6:36 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 50 of 65 (504935)
04-05-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by alaninnont
04-05-2009 8:19 AM


quote:
What others are there?

I never said I thought there were others.

quote:
Are we not on the same page when we're talking about life? We should perhaps settle which things are alive and which are dead before we proceed.

I'm not sure such agreement is possible. What's more, I don't see why such an agreement would be necessary to move this discussion forward. Please explain why you do.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by alaninnont, posted 04-05-2009 8:19 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 51 of 65 (505372)
04-10-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by subbie
04-05-2009 1:32 PM


Re: First organisms
Sorry I took so long in replying. It's been a busy week. Thank God for Easter. (chuckle)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple organisms appeared earliest in earth's history according to fossils and continued in a trend toward more complex organisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I took this statement to mean that the organisms that first appeared were simpler than organisms that appeared later. Now, you seem to be changing the context, arguing that the first organisms were "highly complex." Please clarify: do you mean to be comparing early organisms to later organisms, or are you comparing them to something else? If the latter, please explain what comparison you intend to discuss, and why you think such a discussion would be significant.

Yes, you are right. I was speaking relatively.

Again, please cite me the sources that describe the "observable data" that contradicts the idea of organic molecules self-assembling.

Actually, if you read my statement carefully, you'll see that I didn't say anything about how the organic molecules formed. I merely said that they must have preceded the organisms, since that's what the organisms were made of. It seems self-evident to me that the parts that came together to form the first organisms must have been there before the organisms themselves. If you have another idea how this might have happened, I'd be very curious to hear it.

During one of my Master's courses in Mircrobiology we were given the assignment to come up with a model for the first living cell. We keeners trotted off and here is what we decided. There are many models for the first living cell but a minimum requirement must be the ability to replicate. Viruses have the smallest numbers of base pairs in their genetic code but we immediately ruled them out because they need another living cell in order to replicate. The simplest organisms we see today (observable data) are either prokayotic bacteria or archaea. The smallest DNA molecule of these is about 500 000 base pairs. In these relatively simple single cell organisms, there are an incredible host of chemical reactions that are needed to keep the cell alive. I think it would be theoretically possible to create a reproducing organism with fewer base pairs and chemical reactions but none have been found so the following is speculation.

You need a semi-permeable cell membrane. It must be able to keep out the molecules and chemicals that would interfere with the reactions in the cell and allow in the molecules that are needed. What we see in cells today is a phospholipid bi-layer. It is possible that something else may have made up the first living cell but I am going with observable data. If you break (lyse) the cell membrane, the cell does not divde. So, you need the lipids and phosphates present and you need to bind them together in a sphere.

You need molecules that can provide energy to the cell. The molecule adenosine triphosphate (ATP)is universally used in living things today. Along with this you need an enzyme that will split off the phosphate with its high energy bond to form adenosine diphosphate. This protein (ATPase) is a specific sequence of amino acids and if the amino acids are not in the correct order, they will not fold properly and therefore not be funtional. Because amino acids are not self-assembling, you will need some kind of mechanism to assemble the amino acid chain. There may have been other energy molecules available to the first living cell but they have not been found so again, I am going with observable data. Not only do you need many of these molecules present to drive the chemical reactions, you need them inside the spherical cell membrane.

You need a DNA/RNA molecule. The smallest one that we found is 500 000 base pairs. I think that it would be possible to create life with something smaller but I speculate that the molecule would need to be in the hundred of thousands. Nucleic acids also have attached phosphates and sugars. There are four different kinds in DNA and they must be in the correct order with the possibility of a tiny percent of error. The probability of these lining up in the correct order is infentesimally small. To replicate this molecule you again need enzymes (DNA polymerase as a starter), nucleic acids to form the new chain and transfer RNA. Again, the protein molecules must be in the correct order and there must be a mechanism to assemble them. So, you need these materials present in the cell in high enough concentrations and the mechanisms to assemble them. The DNA molecule is like a code, similar to computer code. Instead of being binary, it has four options. Every amino acid is encoded by a set of three nucleotides (codon). There is a stop codon at the end of the particular segment of the genetic code that creates a certain protein. The RNA created for the protein rachets through, three at a time to link together the amino acids (assuming that they are available) to create the proteins. It is possible that there was some other code to create life in the first cell but I am going with (say it with me) observable data. The DNA/RNA molecule is again universal to life. So, you would need all the nucleotide bases, phosphates, and sugars present with the hundreds of thousands of nucleic acids in the correct order all present in high enough concentrations inside the cell. I have heard the speculations of protocell but they seem highly unlikely to me because of the preceeding and the degradation of all molecules over time.

This is becoming long and possibly boring so I'll skip along. Besides these molecules and mechanisms you would need something that would create another cell membrane, a mechanism to orchestrate the division, and something that would keep the reactions separate so chemicals from one mechanism would not bind to and interfere with other processes. We speculated that there would need to be a minimum of 12 proteins needed but ......

Louis Pasteur, while working on spontaneous generation, came to the conclusion that all living things come from other living things. This hypothesis has stood for 150 years despite some concentrated effort to come up an alternative. It is easier for me to accept a theory that has stood the test of time rather than some speculative organisms for which there is no fossil record or observable data.

Sorry about the feeble attempts at hmour but you know that with microbiologists there's always a fungi.

Edited by alaninnont, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by subbie, posted 04-05-2009 1:32 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 04-16-2009 5:40 PM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 52 of 65 (505779)
04-16-2009 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by alaninnont
04-10-2009 6:36 PM


Re: First organisms
As fascinating as your story is, I'm afraid the point is lost on me. Organisms are complex. So what?

As far as Pasteur is concerned, you are completely off base. Pasteur was disproving the notion that life spontaneously arises on an every day basis with experiments that took days to perform. He never even considered the question about how life might have began billions of years ago in processes that took tens of millions of years. If you disagree, you need to describe in detail what you think Pasteur's experiments consisted of and exactly why they are relevant to the beginning of life.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by alaninnont, posted 04-10-2009 6:36 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by alaninnont, posted 04-18-2009 8:19 AM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 53 of 65 (505845)
04-18-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by subbie
04-16-2009 5:40 PM


Re: First organisms
As fascinating as your story is, I'm afraid the point is lost on me. Organisms are complex. So what?

I was responding to your statements that "they(organic molecules) must have preceded the organisms" and "It seems self-evident to me that the parts that came together to form the first organisms must have been there before the organisms themselves." My point was that observable data, scientific models, and logic do not support these ideas.

As far as Pasteur is concerned, you are completely off base. Pasteur was disproving the notion that life spontaneously arises on an every day basis with experiments that took days to perform. He never even considered the question about how life might have began billions of years ago in processes that took tens of millions of years. If you disagree, you need to describe in detail what you think Pasteur's experiments consisted of and exactly why they are relevant to the beginning of life.

Pasteur was working on spontaneous generation and he came to the conclusion that all life comes from other life. If you disagree with this hypothesis, please provide your evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 04-16-2009 5:40 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by subbie, posted 04-18-2009 9:45 AM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 54 of 65 (505853)
04-18-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by alaninnont
04-18-2009 8:19 AM


Re: First organisms
quote:
My point was that observable data, scientific models, and logic do not support these ideas.

So, you're saying that organisms appeared before the stuff they were made from?

quote:
Pasteur was working on spontaneous generation and he came to the conclusion that all life comes from other life. If you disagree with this hypothesis, please provide your evidence.

I did, in my last post.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by alaninnont, posted 04-18-2009 8:19 AM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by alaninnont, posted 04-18-2009 6:24 PM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 55 of 65 (505866)
04-18-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by subbie
04-18-2009 9:45 AM


Re: First organisms
So, you're saying that organisms appeared before the stuff they were made from?

No. I'm saying that the evidence isn't there. As I stated before, the observable data indicates that the first cells were incredibly complex. Our (the keeners) "model" of the first living cell is entirely fictional. In reality the simplest cell we have found is incredibly complex. The spliceosome (while biologist have talents in many areas, I have come to the conclusion that creative nomeclature is not one of them) for example contains 140 proteins and five RNA molecules. The membrane-bound electron transport chain is an amazing energy producing machine. Even in the simplest of organisms, we haven't come anywhere close to identifying all of the chemical pathways.

I did, in my last post.

No, you didn't. Pasteur's conclusion still stands.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by subbie, posted 04-18-2009 9:45 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 04-18-2009 6:35 PM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 56 of 65 (505867)
04-18-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by alaninnont
04-18-2009 6:24 PM


Re: First organisms
I agree that the first organisms were likely complex. (There's no evidence to support an assumption that they were as complex as the simplest organisms now, but complex nonetheless.) I also agree that we don't know exactly how they formed (and perhaps never will).

So what?

quote:
No, you didn't. Pasteur's conclusion still stands.

I'm not arguing against Pasteur's conclusion. I'm arguing against your misunderstanding of it. Please explain why you think that an experiment conducted over a period of days can say anything about a process that took millions or billions of years.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by alaninnont, posted 04-18-2009 6:24 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by alaninnont, posted 04-19-2009 8:45 PM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 57 of 65 (505901)
04-19-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by subbie
04-18-2009 6:35 PM


Re: First organisms
So how were the first complex living organism(s) created?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 04-18-2009 6:35 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 04-19-2009 9:37 PM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 58 of 65 (505905)
04-19-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by alaninnont
04-19-2009 8:45 PM


Re: First organisms
quote:
So how were the first complex living organism(s) created?

I'll repeat, we don't know for sure, and possibly never will.

So what?

If you'll read back, I previously dealt with this type of argument, the god of the gaps argument. The fact that we don't know something isn't evidence that goddidit. It's just evidence that we don't know something. That's all. Unanswered questions are not evidence that god exists. If you think they are, you need to spell that reasoning out, step by step, in detail.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by alaninnont, posted 04-19-2009 8:45 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by alaninnont, posted 04-23-2009 7:38 AM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2966 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 59 of 65 (506146)
04-23-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by subbie
04-19-2009 9:37 PM


Re: First organisms
I can't help but notice the similarities between your belief system and that of some fundamentallist religious groups. Your belief is based of faith. When you encounter things you can't explain, you still believe and say you don't know and probably never will. You claim that the opposing views tell lies and are inaccurate but you don't have any evidence. When asked for evidence for your beliefs you say that the evidence is that there's no evidence to the contrary.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 04-19-2009 9:37 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 04-23-2009 4:24 PM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 60 of 65 (506183)
04-23-2009 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by alaninnont
04-23-2009 7:38 AM


Re: First organisms
quote:
I can't help but notice the similarities between your belief system...

What belief system is that? So far, the only thing that I've said about "belief" is that I don't believe in a creator.

quote:
...and that of some fundamentallist religious groups.

Petty insults and tu quoque fallacies don't make much impact on me.

quote:
Your belief is based of faith. When you encounter things you can't explain, you still believe and say you don't know and probably never will.

My belief is based on evidence. I see evidence of the incredible power of the scientific method to find truths about the world. I don't hold it against that method that it doesn't know all the answers. Instead, I give it credit for the ones that it does. Thus, I believe in science because it works, even though it hasn't yet figured it all out.

quote:
You claim that the opposing views tell lies and are inaccurate but you don't have any evidence. When asked for evidence for your beliefs you say that the evidence is that there's no evidence to the contrary.

This is such a gross mischaracterization of my statements in this thread, I can only conclude that you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I've said, you haven't bothered to read what I said, or you are deliberately mischaracterizing what I've said for some reason. None of these conclusions give me much motive for continuing in this thread. If you can provide an alternate reason for your mischaraterization, or a reason for me to continue, please do.

This thread began as a challenge for me to answer what you claimed were "points for a creator." I've given several general lines of reasoning that apply variously to the points that you've raised. If there are any points that you feel I've not addressed, please let me know. I don't want you to think that I've shied away from your "points."


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by alaninnont, posted 04-23-2009 7:38 AM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by alaninnont, posted 04-23-2009 8:54 PM subbie has responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017