|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4823 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving the Musculoskeletal System | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
can the ocean life alone produce enough oxygen to sustain an atmosphere with ozone if there was no life on land? Most atmospheric oxygen is produced by sea life (which makes sense, since the ocean is 3/4 of the surface of the Earth.) Especially in the absence of significant respirating land life, yes, it's more than enough to oxygenate the atmosphere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4823 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
..."and back by unpopular demand...heeressss IC" Hi everybody. After looking over round one it became clear that there were several issues that I need to return to and put a spotlight on.
There are important questions asked that were either completely side-stepped with diversionary tactics or glossed over with shallow statements that failed to give a satisfactory explanation. Many things you have said just don't add up or in the case of the following, add up to way too much;
Percy writes: The first "organism" was probably just a collection of chemicals held within some kind of membrane, and that "organism" was "fully formed." By way of example of the probabilistically impossible odds of abiogenesis, consider theMay 31, 2007 paper published by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Peer reviewed and published in Biology Today [2], Koonin calculated the probability of the most simple life form arising by natural processes, with the following conclusion: The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translationsystem, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: - two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018. That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros.Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a multiverse of an infinite number of universes, the chance of life occuring on earth is vanishingly small, and we can understand the practical import to be that life by natural proceses in a universe such as ours to be impossible. OK class lets say it all together...IMPAHHHSIBULL !! Thank you,IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. That is only a single candidate. You need to show the probability of every candidate occuring, even those that have not been proposed yet. What you need to find is the simplest candidate possible that does evolve and then calculate the probability of that candidate coming about through inorganic chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
OK, lets try another example.
Try to roll 100 dice and get all sixes. Impossible? Not the way evolution works. Roll the dice and anything that is not a six, just roll again. No problem. You'll have all sixes before lunch, with plenty of time out for morning tea. This example illustrates the problem mathematicians and creationists have. They calculate the odds of everything happening all at once. In practice, evolution works in tiny steps with billions of cases all evolving at the same time. What doesn't work is weeded out and what works is retained. That changes the odds considerably. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4823 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Coyote writes: evolution works in tiny steps with billions of cases all evolving at the same time. Were talking about the very first organism here if you would pay attention Coyote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Percy writes: The first "organism" was probably just a collection of chemicals held within some kind of membrane, and that "organism" was "fully formed." ICdesign writes: (quoting E. Koonin)
I'm not sure why it is not clear to you, but what Percy is suggesting as a first "organism" is far more primitive than what Koonin is discussing. It is far more primitive than anything that we would actually consider an organism, which is why Percy used scare quotes.
The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4823 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
nwr writes: I'm not sure why it is not clear to you, but what Percy is suggesting as a first "organism" is far more primitive than what Koonin is discussing. NO he isn't;
"That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros." Both Percy and Koonin were talking about 1st life. So you are full of poopoo cahcah
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Coyote writes: evolution works in tiny steps with billions of cases all evolving at the same time. Were talking about the very first organism here if you would pay attention Coyote. What's the difference? Do you have any evidence that the first organism couldn't have been assembled bit by bit, rather than all at once? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
After looking over round one it became clear that there were several issues that I need to return to and put a spotlight on. Right, like "what was the first actually bony organism, and what characteristics did its skeleton have." I notice you don't ask that, though. Is that because you continue to assume that, according to evolution, humans evolved from ape precursors that had no skeletons at all? Boneless apes?
There are important questions asked that were either completely side-stepped with diversionary tactics or glossed over with shallow statements that failed to give a satisfactory explanation. If you continue to lack the background in biology that would allow you to understand a deeper response, you're necessarily going to be limited to shallow responses because those are the only responses we can expect you to understand.
consider the May 31, 2007 paper published by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Which paper, specifically? I see a citation mark in your quoted text ("[2]"), do you think you could provide the citation, so we could find the paper? You have a tendancy not to actually read materials you cite, or to consider summaries more authoritative than the actual primary source (the Lederbergs' paper, for instance) so we'd like to find this paper and actually read it. You should, too. I just did a PubMed search and Eugene Koonin has about 9 papers published in May of 2007, none of them in a journal called "Biology Today." Did you mean Biology Direct?
The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater Much greater than what? I think there's a lot of context you've omitted, perhaps dishonestly, and a "replication/translation system" is more complicated and complex than the proposed first life form. Replication/translation refers to protein synthesis, but the RNA World hypothesizes forms of life that perform chemistry with RNA-based enzymes, not protein enzymes.
That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros. Yes, ICDESIGN, we know how to read scientific notation of large numbers. Almost certainly you're the only one here for whom "1e1018" is an unfamiliar notation. The question is - 1 times ten to the 1018 power what? Universes? Planets? Discreet chemical interactions? Be more specific.
we can understand the practical import to be that life by natural proceses in a universe such as ours to be impossible. Repeated trials turn improbabilities into inevitabilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Both Percy and Koonin were talking about 1st life. No, he's not. The first life didn't do protein-based chemistry.
quote: Koonin didn't write this; this is editorializing from whatever source you're copying from. This is why you should rely on primary sources, IC; because you frequently mistake editorializing in the secondary source for material in the primary source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 26 Joined:
|
New guy here, so be gentles. Let me address these comments:
quote: This is only true if you view "kinds", whatever they are, as an immovable window, with solid defined edges. While they may seem logical to you, it's not how nature works. Species represent a window defined and applied by humans. I think it's safe to say that the offspring is always the same "kind" as the parent, but over time, what defines that "kind" slowly changes. In fact, every generation is subtly different from the one before, which I am sure you accept. I don't know of ANYTHING in "THE law" that demands that "kinds" are firm and immovable and that such changes cannot occur.
quote: Well, what about languages? Italian, Spanish, and French are descended from Latin, I think you'd admit. There is NO DOUBT this is the case. There logically, then, MUST have been some point at which the languages were more similar to each other. At what point did French become French? Was there a single day when it was Latin (or Italian) and then the next day it was French? No.... it was likey fuzzier than that... it was Italo-Frech. Or Frankish. These delineations aren't so stark. Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given. Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4823 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
I see a citation mark in your quoted text ("[2]"), do you think you could provide the citation, so we could find the paper? The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9196 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
Bad ICDESIGN.
This is a cut and paste from another forum and that was a cut and paste too. Maybe you could have an original thought sometimehttp://forums.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=104618 The give away is the footnote. Neither you or the person you stole it from had the sense to remove. This seems to be the original article that the foot note is pointing to. I cannot find where the cut and paste came from but I will keep looking.UltraDNS Client Redirection Service Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4823 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: This is why you should rely on primary sources, IC; because you frequently mistake editorializing in the secondary source for material in the primary source. This is direct from the paper Crashfrog. You do the math and prove the editorial was wrong. The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translationsystem, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: - two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
This is direct from the paper Crashfrog. You do the math and prove the editorial was wrong. The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translationsystem, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: - two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018. That is for just a single candidate, as stated in the quote. If life arose through a much simpler replicator then your probabilities are meaningless. What you need to show is that this is the simplest candidate possible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024