|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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: And follow that with the new addition to the thread:
quote:quote: 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:I.e it is a step towards but not an example of a self replicating molecule. Can you tell me the difference between:
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, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You can't claim that the shared characteristics are evidence of a Common Designer. For three additional reasons.
Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : moreby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So, Dredge, did you quote Gould because of your stupidity? Dawkins' "ignorance is no crime" gives three other alternatives, which includes mendacity ("design"), ignorance and insanity ... But I have been giving this a bit of thought and would like to break it down slightly differently: There are Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works:
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But 3 and 4 have some series areas of overlap. 3....Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held. 4...They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected. I see Ham, Hovind, Batten, etc as type 4 -- they are the ones making up stuff and peddling it as "alternative facts" ... they may have started as type 3 but have built on it and this addition makes them type 4 ... imho. I see the type 3 as the people Dawkins describes as tortured because they are deceived into believing falsehoods that conflict with reality (hence the cog-dis).
Categories 3 and 4 probably describe most of the current Creationist posters here, although I suspect some folks of being in category 5. (Not naming names). That is purely my own opinion. Well I though Davidjay might be a 5, certainly a 4, making up stuff and trying to pawn it off as real. But this is getting off topic. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Science can and does explain why the sky IS blue and the grass IS green. There is in fact a paper that is called "why the earth is green" because of ecology .... Hairston, Nelson G., Frederick E. Smith, and Lawrence B. Slobodkin. "Community Structure, Population Control, and Competition." The American Naturalist 94, no. 879 (1960): 421-25. JSTOR: Access Check. ... known as the "Why is the world green" paper. Note: you can register for JSTOR and have free access to a "bookshelf" to read this (and other JSTOR) papers. Or message me your email and I can email a pdf of the paper. Frederick E. Smith was my dad. The others were regulars at our house at the time. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What is the difference between Porsche making a 'family' of sports cars and a nested hierarchy? Or what about a nested of heirachy of vehicles in general? The differences between a bunch of designed vehicles and a nested hierarchy of vehicles is in the lineage of traits. When new features are shared across the board rather than only in one lineage, that breaks the nested hierarchy. Example: rear window wipers. Introduce by Volvo (1969 Volvo IIRC), now there is no SUV from any company that doesn't have them. Not a nested trait. Tires from same company on different makes and models vehicles. Not a nested trait. Injection carburetors from the same company on different makes and models vehicles. Not a nested trait. BUT ... this is what evidence of design looks like. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Self-replicating? Sort of. But not one that is likely to occur naturally. Sort of actually being self-replicating? It doesn't need to be "likely to occur naturally" ... it just needs to be possible to occur naturally. Moving on:
quote: Pretty straight forward.
This appears to be the original article. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
YECs claim the earth is at least a billion years old? Because that's what the ice cores say. The oldest ice core date I am aware of is 808,008 years (2017) old. Still way longer than all the various versions of YECie fantasy ages combined. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You had 2 chances to give your best example. That's it. And what I said was that they were all good examples of self-replicating molecules. Each is different, so ignoring one is only looking at a small amount of the available information. Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away .... Moving on:
quote: This is an update on the previous post. Scientific American has changed their website policy and I'm not able to read this article in the new site. I'll update when I can. His CV is at Missing resource | Scripps Research -- you can see he has done a lot of research in this field.
quote: Several self-replicating molecules. More to come. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My aptitude for mathematics is Einstein-like, but I can't figure out how to got from = 100 99,99to = 100 9999 Really? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... But using the "starting point" of a young earth is no worse than using evolution as a starting point, which is what most atheists do. Yes it is, because there is objective empirical evidence that the earth is way older than all the YECie assumption filled "calculations" combined. AND it is, because there is objective empirical evidence that evolution occurs, has occurred, and continues to occur. We can also use astro-physics to show an old world and geology to show an old world and paleontology to show evolution and chemistry to show how biology works and biology to show how evolution works -- in other words there are other fields that provide consilient evidence for both an old world and evolution. There are no other supporting systems for a young earth. Any rational open minded but skeptical unbiased person coming to the information from a state of complete ignorance of all the information, who then weighed the information before deciding which position was more valid, would choose the positions backed by evidence. Thought experiment: if you eradicated all bibles and all memories of the bible from the minds of all humans, would it be recreated by anyone interested in finding "truth" about reality? If you eradicated all science books and all memories of the science from the minds of all humans, would it be recreated by anyone interested in finding "truth" about reality? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024