Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1051 of 1311 (815790)
07-24-2017 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1006 by Dredge
07-23-2017 4:53 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
How can you expect me to understand this? It's written in a foreign language! Regardless, it would no doubt be based on facts that any creation-believing biologist would agree with. Such facts lead to either a conclusion of common descent or a conclusion of a common Creator, depending on which philosophical camp one belongs to. In other words, SIFTER will produce results regardless of how anyone thinks life came to be - because it depends on scientific facts, not on a subjective and irrelevant view of history.
Please explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy (i.e. a phylogeny).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by Dredge, posted 07-23-2017 4:53 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by Dredge, posted 07-25-2017 2:35 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 1052 of 1311 (815791)
07-24-2017 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1012 by Faith
07-23-2017 7:56 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Faith writes:
Ha ha, so true. Same superstition but without the creative Mind, and they actually believe it!
You are the only one who believes that life was magically poofed into being.
It's obviously impossible but "science" has no problem with such an impossibility while calling the reasonable explanation of a Creator a superstition.
When did magical poofing become a reasonable explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1012 by Faith, posted 07-23-2017 7:56 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1070 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 1:32 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 1053 of 1311 (815792)
07-24-2017 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1034 by Dredge
07-24-2017 2:25 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Dredge writes:
Get a grip. No one knows what happened billions of years ago. Scientists who think they do are egotistical bs-artists.
Once again, all you have is name calling. You can't counter the scientists, so you call the scientists names.
Here's a bit of advice. Grow up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by Dredge, posted 07-24-2017 2:25 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1071 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 1:37 AM Taq has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 1054 of 1311 (815824)
07-24-2017 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1045 by RAZD
07-24-2017 11:12 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Curiously I think they are all equally good examples
Good, then you'll have no trouble picking one.
Please give an example that is not behind a paywall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1045 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 11:12 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1056 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 10:24 PM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 1055 of 1311 (815825)
07-24-2017 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1043 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 9:47 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
The Cambrian Explosion is a single occurrence that took millions of years. (Speaking in terms of an old Earth view) Similarly the occurrence of life could have taken millions of years with only one winner, as Dobzhansky says. The consequence is that all living things today have come from a last universal common ancestor. That at least is the consensus opinion of evolutionists today.
What if we do find a life form that could not have arisen from that ancestor? Not much really. Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life. Creationists already believe in separate creation of different kinds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 9:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1058 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2017 12:17 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 1060 by Tangle, posted 07-25-2017 3:02 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 1062 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2017 10:27 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 1063 by dwise1, posted 07-25-2017 10:33 AM CRR has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1056 of 1311 (815830)
07-24-2017 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1054 by CRR
07-24-2017 8:09 PM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Curiously I think they are all equally good examples
Good, then you'll have no trouble picking one.
Please give an example that is not behind a paywall.
Try the video for starters ...
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II):
NOTE: this starts with a review of creationist claims, and the actual science starts at about 2:40 into the video. You can move the button ahead to the 2:40 mark and not miss any of the science. You can also turn off the sound, unless you are very fond of Beethoven's 9th symphony, as there is no narration.
You don't need the sound, it is just Beethoven for background music, no voice-over. The first 2 minutes 40 seconds reviews typical creationist misconceptions and misinformation, a touch snide. Watch this one to skip the intro
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1054 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 8:09 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 11:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


(1)
Message 1057 of 1311 (815831)
07-24-2017 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1056 by RAZD
07-24-2017 10:24 PM


Re: Self replicating molecule
Nice fairy story, but that's all it is. The only molecule I saw named was Phosphoramidate DNA.
I found a paper by Szostak et al Synthesis of N3′-P5′-linked Phosphoramidate DNA by Nonenzymatic Template-Directed Primer Extension - PMC where in the discussion they say
quote:
Our observation of rapid, efficient nonenzymatic template-directed synthesis of short tracts of 3′-NP-DNA using activated 3′-aminonucleotides is an encouraging step toward the demonstration of a chemically self-replicating genetic polymer.
I.e it is a step towards but not an example of a self replicating molecule. Neither is it spontaneous polermization as the video claimed since it required a carefully constructed template. The paper didn't discuss the experimental set up but I suspect as in other cases a carefully controlled laboratory environment and carefully selected reagents is required to get favourable results.
Since I asked for your best example and that has failed I need look no further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2017 10:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1064 by RAZD, posted 07-25-2017 11:15 AM CRR has replied
 Message 1065 by ringo, posted 07-25-2017 11:49 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 1067 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 1:16 PM CRR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 1058 of 1311 (815834)
07-25-2017 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1055 by CRR
07-24-2017 8:24 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
quote:
What if we do find a life form that could not have arisen from that ancestor? Not much really. Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life. Creationists already believe in separate creation of different kinds.
That would depend on what it was. If it was an obscure bacterium or something similar then there would likely be no problem for evolutionary theory. If it was a large multicellular animal or plant there would be questions about it's ancestry.
For creationists, of course, the problem is that we don't find convincing evidence of separate creations. Such evidence should be quite widespread if creationism were true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 8:24 PM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1073 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 1:54 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1059 of 1311 (815836)
07-25-2017 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Taq
07-24-2017 1:16 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Taq writes:
Please explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy (i.e. a phylogeny).
Why did God make a bunch of primates that are like humans in many ways, yet different? I don't know. It's a bit like asking, why did God make the sky blue and grass green? Or even, why did God make Dredge super-duper-intelligent and incredibly handsome? There are many mysteries.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 1:16 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1066 by ringo, posted 07-25-2017 11:51 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1068 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 1:17 PM Dredge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1060 of 1311 (815837)
07-25-2017 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1055 by CRR
07-24-2017 8:24 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
It's not essential for the ToE that there is a single common ancestor.
Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life. Creationists already believe in separate creation of different kinds.
Creationists don't know what they believe, you can't even tell me if elephants nd tapirs are different kinds or why pigs and cows must be different kinds.
Biologists are talking about common ancestors way down the evolutionary tree - billions of years ago - not in the top branches. Common ancestry is proven way below where creationists are required to put it and with billions of years difference. Don't pretend there's an equivalence.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 8:24 PM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1061 by Pressie, posted 07-25-2017 7:14 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 1061 of 1311 (815842)
07-25-2017 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1060 by Tangle
07-25-2017 3:02 AM


Creationist have to tell untruths about scientific findings. Re: seven "assumptions"
Creationists have to tell untruths about scientific findings. That's all they have. CRR, the first forms of life as we know life were prokaryotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1060 by Tangle, posted 07-25-2017 3:02 AM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1062 of 1311 (815844)
07-25-2017 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1055 by CRR
07-24-2017 8:24 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Similarly the occurrence of life could have taken millions of years with only one winner, as Dobzhansky says. The consequence is that all living things today have come from a last universal common ancestor. That at least is the consensus opinion of evolutionists today.
What if we do find a life form that could not have arisen from that ancestor? Not much really. Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life.
Right, so therefore it is not an assumption. Agreed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 8:24 PM CRR has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1063 of 1311 (815846)
07-25-2017 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1055 by CRR
07-24-2017 8:24 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life.
What the hell are you talking about? Don't you ever think before posting? Or are you so accustomed to feeding on bullshit that you automatically spout it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 8:24 PM CRR has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1064 of 1311 (815848)
07-25-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1057 by CRR
07-24-2017 11:53 PM


Re: Self replicating molecule
Nice fairy story, but that's all it is. The only molecule I saw named was Phosphoramidate DNA.
Curiously I said start with the video. It's a nice introduction to the science of abiogenesis and the multiple aspects they are working on. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation -- what came first the self-replicating genetic polymer or the cell membrane?
Let's go to the next one:
quote:
There are many known self-replicating molecules, and a brief listing of some of them is provided below. There is also a large variety of molecules that can self-replicate. Some of the more exciting research (see ref (1) below) confirmed my prediction that self-replicating molecules would compete for resources, and showing how they can dominate the population - chemical evolution: random formation plus selection of the fastest.
(1) - Artificial molecule evolves in the lab , 08 January 2009 by Ewen Callaway
quote:
A new molecule that performs the essential function of life - self-replication - could shed light on the origin of all living things.
...
Rather than start with RNA enzymes - ribozymes - present in other organisms, Joyce's team created its own molecule from scratch, called R3C. It performed a single function: stitching two shorter RNA molecules together to create a clone of itself.
...
To improve R3C, Lincoln redesigned the molecule to forge a sister RNA that could itself join two other pieces of RNA into a functioning ribozyme. That way, each molecule makes a copy of its sister, a process called cross replication. The population of two doubles and doubles until there are no more starting bits of RNA left.
...
Not content with achieving one hallmark of life in the lab, Joyce and Lincoln sought to evolve their molecule by natural selection. They did this by mutating sequences of the RNA building blocks, so that 288 possible ribozymes could be built by mixing and matching different pairs of shorter RNAs.
What came out bore an eerie resemblance to Darwin's theory of natural selection: a few sequences proved winners, most losers. The victors emerged because they could replicate fastest while surrounded by competition, Joyce says.

And follow that with the new addition to the thread:
quote:
quote:
Diversification of self-replicating molecules
Abstract
How new species emerge in nature is still incompletely understood and difficult to study directly. Self-replicating molecules provide a simple model that allows us to capture the fundamental processes that occur in species formation. We have been able to monitor in real time and at a molecular level the diversification of self-replicating molecules into two distinct sets that compete for two different building blocks (‘food’) and so capture an important aspect of the process by which species may arise. The results show that the second replicator set is a descendant of the first and that both sets are kinetic products that oppose the thermodynamic preference of the system. The sets occupy related but complementary food niches. As diversification into sets takes place on the timescale of weeks and can be investigated at the molecular level, this work opens up new opportunities for experimentally investigating the process through which species arise both in real time and with enhanced detail.
This also begs the question of when "life" develops -- I would say when evolution begins, and that looks like these molecules qualify.
I have not tried to access the paper with the free login they have yet. I'm sure someone here can download it and email it.
So we see further evidence of evolutionary-like behavior in the molecule chemistry replication behavior ... variation and selection.
I found a paper by Szostak et al Synthesis of N3′-P5′-linked Phosphoramidate DNA by Nonenzymatic Template-Directed Primer Extension - PMC where in the discussion they say
quote:
Our observation of rapid, efficient nonenzymatic template-directed synthesis of short tracts of 3′-NP-DNA using activated 3′-aminonucleotides is an encouraging step toward the demonstration of a chemically self-replicating genetic polymer.
I.e it is a step towards but not an example of a self replicating molecule.
Can you tell me the difference between:
  1. a self-replicating molecule, and
  2. a chemically self-replicating genetic polymer?
So we now have two (of the many) self-replicating molecules listed in Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) above ... are they "chemically self-replicating genetic polymers?" Inquiring minds want to know.
Are they evolving? Are they life?
... The paper didn't discuss the experimental set up but I suspect as in other cases a carefully controlled laboratory environment and carefully selected reagents is required to get favourable results.
Which just defines the parameters for possible ways for self-replicating molecules to develop. When you look at each of the different molecules, each with a different setup of controlled environment and selected reagents, then you begin to see the realm of the possible.
What we can say is that it is not impossible to make self-replicating molecules. It's been done. It's old news. It's fact.
Since I asked for your best example and that has failed I need look no further.
You asked for the best, but what I said was to start there, ... and now we have more ... you give up too easily, my friend, especially when it suits you.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 11:53 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1103 by CRR, posted 07-28-2017 1:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 1065 of 1311 (815849)
07-25-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1057 by CRR
07-24-2017 11:53 PM


Re: Self replicating molecule
CRR writes:
I.e it is a step towards but not an example of a self replicating molecule. Neither is it spontaneous polermization as the video claimed since it required a carefully constructed template.
Both are a demonstration that the chemistry is possible.
You guys keep saying it's impossible. Then every time they demonstrate a step you say, "No wait, it's the next step." Then when that step is demonstrated you say, "No wait, it's the next step after that." After being wrong step after step, maybe it's time to reconsider your conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 11:53 PM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024