IC challenge: Evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle!

Yes.......EVERYTHING....., not just motorbikes, is what the alleged submicroscopic speck of singularity space via the BB was suppose to randomly and naturally bring about to eventually exist.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Yeah, I'd say that a requirement for "life" coming from previously "non-living" things is impossible without those "non-living" things evolving.Of course we can't go back in time to find out how it actually happened, but chemical and molecular evolution happens all the time. There are selection pressures on "non-living" systems too.One thing to consider is that there is no clearly defined line between what constitues life and non-life.I mean just some simple protocells can sit and replicate as long as there is a steady supply of fatty acids or phospholipids. If they were sitting on some montmorillonite (a clay found in scoopable kitty litter) with some nucleic acids and some ribose and you have RNA sitting in a vesicle. This isn't alive but the vesicles can reproduce by simply growing and dividing, which all rely on diffusion rates and surface area to volume. Throw in a supply of molecules that can enter the vesicle undergo hydrolysis and you just might have the beginnings of vesicles that can both reproduce AND evolve. Are they alive yet? I guess that would make them alive.Page Not Found

quote:

---

The bilayer membrane that surrounds all present-day cells is thought to have spontaneously assembled from amphiphilic molecules (i.e., fatty acids). It has been demonstrated that fatty acid mixtures can form membranes and that these simple amphiphilic molecules could have existed in the prebiotic conditions of the early Earth. But primordial life also requires other ingredients, such nucleic acids. Mineral surfaces can catalyze the assembly of nucleic acids into RNA, but how these molecules became encapsulated in a vesicle membrane has been unclear. In the October 24 Science, Martin Hanczyc and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital report that clays can catalyze the formation of vesicles and that simple physicochemical forces can drive their growth and division (Science, 302:618-622, October 24, 2003).

---

protocellsUh oh!
Here is a website for a Bio 1010 course that lays out "evolution" the way that chaps creationists' hides.
http://arnica.csustan.edu/Biol1010/origins/origins.htmBut they talk about the process of "chemical evolution" which would be the evolution of things we would consider non-living.Oh no!
Here's another one! It's a conspiracy!
School of Arts and Sciences |Damn you Ned Wright!!!

Welcome to the fray.Nice point on the probability.I ran it for all five with a probability of 1 in 1000, where the "all at once" argument calculates the probability at 0.001⁵ or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 (your typical astronomically impossible number)And the one by one events work out to:
1st one in 5 = 0.00499 (1 in 200.4)
2nd one in 4 = 0.00399 (1 in 250.4)
3rd one in 3 = 0.00300 (1 in 333.7)
4th one in 2 = 0.00200 (1 in 500.3)
5th one in 1 = 0.00100 (1 in 1000)
SUM = 1 in 2284.7 to finish the jobNot only that, but as you add more "complexity" to the issue you are adding in smaller and smaller increments.
a sixth bond would add a 1 in six = 0.00598 or 1 in 167.1, and a total of 1 in 2451.6, a 7th would add a 1 in 7 = 0.00698 or 1 in 143.3 and a total of 1 in 2595.1diminishing increments the further you go (an expotential decay I believe) and certainly well within the realms of possibility by anyones stretched imagination.then add to this the probability that any of a number of complex amino acids can result as stable molecules (your "retrodiction" comment applied to the molecule in question) and you start getting multiples of possible ends instead of 1, and those multiples reduce the {1 in 2284.7} or {1 in 2451.6} or {1 in 2595.1} by the same amountif I needed to make any of {1 of 100} 5-bonded molecules I now have a 1 in 22.847 probability.and even that does not complete the possibilities, as any duplex bond could combine with a triplex bond set instead of adding single bonds, and the longer the molecule you need the more possibilities there are for joining smaller multi-bond molecules.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

that's abiogenesis hon.and yes evolution covers all those areas but it's not a single unified theory.

The universe evolved to fit the critters?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi RAZD,Thanks for the reply. You extrapolated my calculations out even beyond what I thought necessary to prove my point, but in the process, you made me realize what should have been obvious to me already: that the more bonds take place, the more potential bonding sites to the molecule are created, and the more likely subsequent additions are (assuming that the valence level of one or more of the atoms is not already full).As if the amino acids discovered in the Murchison meteorite weren't sufficient to close the issue, this certainly should.Thanks,-J

---

Siempre que ensees, ensea a la vez a dudar de lo que enseas.-Jos Ortega y Gasset

Hi Gnojek. There's one problematic little phrase in your post which allows your majority opinion here on this board no more clout than the minority view. Here it is:could have existedCheers!

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

It all boils down to "Is there, or is there not a creator who designed the universe." Your argument can be sumarized in one word; secularism, no matter how much you try to segmentize it. Our argument takes two words; intelligent design, no matter how some care to segmentize it.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

try this again and see if I can get through it without crashing ... (don't you hate losing posts just before you post them?) yes. you piqued my interest in seeing what the final result was for strict comparison to develop a preselected formation. if you do open it up to the probabilities of creating a soup with varieties of amino acid building blocks then each addition can be thought to have the same probability of bonding to any previous location, thus the fifth and last of a 5 bond molecule would have a 1 in 1000 probability with each of the previous 4, or a total 1 in 250 chance. and the lake tagish meteor
http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/PDF/tagish.pdfand the organics found in deep interstellar space (and hence as old as the light path ... ), unfortunately my link to Identifying polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in space is broken now (such is life in cyberspace), but I have these quotes from it (saved at another site): this is also mentioned in:
http://pokey.arc.nasa.gov/%7Emax/abstracts.htmlthere is also Scientists Toast the Discovery of Vinyl Alcohol in Interstellar Space
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01zi.htmlalso see NASA - Origins of Life
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htmand Nature - Mineral brew grows 'cells' (need sign-up\sign-in)
Mineral brew grows 'cells' | Nature if you access the webpage there are some cool pictures.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

every instance I know of where intelligence has intentionally interfered with the development of species to get a "designed" result, the purpose has been to make it a "better" food source ...

Buz, This is what it boils down to really:Non-ID view: ID view: The first statement is tentative and scientific ie backed up by evidence. The second is unfalsifible, and totally unsupported by evidence. It is so unsupported that even qualified biochemists like Behe have to resort to argument by analogy^* How is that equal? ^*If you don't agree with this statement then please explain how a mousetrap/motorbike bares any resemblence to the world of cells and proteinsCheers

Nonsequiture

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

you'd like to think that wouldn't you. but see. if you had ever read anything i posted...

buzsaw responds to sidelined:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What does spontaneous generation mean exactly?

---

​

Some will disagree, but I'll go with Gould and Huxley on that. Alleged spontaneous generation is the alleged genesis of evolution or biogenesis, i.e. bio-genesis, i.e. beginning of life spontaneously/randomly.

---

Incorrect.And neither quote you provide from Gould or Huxley indicates that this is their definition of spontaneous generation."Spontaneous generation" has a very specific meaning in biology and was (at least as far as the story goes) disproven by Pasteur.Abiogenesis is not "spontaneous generation."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I know you creos are in the minority here and you do have to get around to answering loads of posts (especially in topics like this one), but is this a bit unnecessarily dismissive. A sentence explaining what you were talking about would have been nice.Besides which, I don’t actually think that what I said was completely out of left-field in the first place. I’ll try and make myself clearer. For example: You were stating that because of the use of the words could have, ID should automatically be accepted as a proper scientific theory. I was pointing out that it demonstrates what I see to be the clear difference between the two approaches.Science uses evidence to make statements like This could haveID uses incredulity to make statements like This could never haveBecause ID’s position is so difficult to support with positive evidence (ie it is unfalsifiable), whenever it is discussed ID proponents will always fall back on an analogy to describe how unlikely they think it all is and then precede to argue from that analogy. This is exactly the type of thing you’ve been doing, when you say things like this: I think this particular point is most definitely ON-topicSo please can you explain how a bike making factory is anything like a protein making cell. Start with the fact that all of the different parts of the bike have to be made up of the same material, and then go on to explain how the blueprints for the bike (and everything else the factory makes) are stored and copied.I hope this makes my position clearer.