TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Parasomnium writes: You can't seriously expect a theory that was formed before all of those breakthroughs to remain unchanged after them. It has nothing to do with Darwin being philosophical, and everything with science making progress.

and this is what I find so curious

todays discoveries have been so profound with regard to the complexity of life and the universe, yet the idea that it all just happened by blind chance and undirected persists

of course not all scientist believe it was undirected, but a good majority of them do and they promote it as evolution.

But with regard to Darwin, i dont disrespect the man, i disrespect his theory. I can understand why he came up with the theory though and i dont think it was because of scientific discovery.

Peg writes: But you have to admit that modern science has shown Darwins theory to have flaws and this has led to much of it being revamped or discarded.

Do you doubt gravity? Because that has been more completely revamped than evolution was.

I used the quote from Darwin because moleculuar biology proves that Darwins fear is a reality.

But it isn't a reality.

Modern biochemistry has revealed just how complex living things really are.

And that they could have evolved step by step.

Cells can only function if all the parts are complete and working properly. Or IOW, the first complex cell must have appeared instantaneously as a complete functioning unit.

Wrong. Modern biology shows the exact opposite.

the Cell puts darwins theory to bed so to speak.

No it doesn't It confirms again how right he actually was.

life did not arise by chance and evolve in the way he and other philosophers described it.

Everything about modern biology shows it did.

---

I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Huntard writes: Wrong. Modern biology shows the exact opposite.

ok, explain what the exact opposite is you are refering to

Peg writes: Parasomnium writes: You can't seriously expect a theory that was formed before all of those breakthroughs to remain unchanged after them. It has nothing to do with Darwin being philosophical, and everything with science making progress. and this is what I find so curious todays discoveries have been so profound with regard to the complexity of life and the universe, yet the idea that it all just happened by blind chance and undirected persists

It's not just blind chance, you've been told that a million times. But aside from that, the core idea of Darwin's theory has been vindicated by later discoveries, most notably the last two I mentioned in my previous post.

But with regard to Darwin, i dont disrespect the man, i disrespect his theory. I can understand why he came up with the theory though and i dont think it was because of scientific discovery.

I can only say: read his books.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I wonder what darwin would think today

He'd be elated to learn that after 150 years of trying, the people with the strongest motivation to find an example of such an organ have still not come up with one example that will withstand a moment's scrutiny.

But with regard to Darwin, i dont disrespect the man, i disrespect his theory. I can understand why he came up with the theory though and i dont think it was because of scientific discovery.

How can you disrespect the theory when you don't even understand the basics of that theory?

Peg, this is disengenuous, bigoted, prejudice and wrong in its highest form.

Darwin spent his ENTIRE life committing his life to scientific discovery. He spend hours upon hours studying life from microscopic to the macroscopic and even with his limited scientific tools of the day came up with one of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history. You can't even come close to the amount of research he did into this scientific field so who are you to judge?

I agree with Parasomnium. If you are going to cast stones at least read the man's work first.

---

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Well then see the answer I gave to that interpretation of the question back in Clarification (Message 460).

TTFN,

WK

Wounded King writes: Well then see the answer I gave to that interpretation of the question back in Clarification (Message 460). Then the answer is no. There are some parts whose removal will compromise the cells viability, but there are others whose removal will still allow the cell to function. Depending on the specific flavour of irreducible complexity you prefer this either does or doesn't make a living cell irreducibly complex.

ok so maybe you can explain which parts of the cell can be removed without causing the cell to cease functioning and reproducing.

Modern biochemistry has revealed just how complex living things really are. Cells can only function if all the parts are complete and working properly. Or IOW, the first complex cell must have appeared instantaneously as a complete functioning unit.

Peg, this is so easy, why are you not getting it?

The first complex cells were produced from the last ever-so-slightly-less-than-complex cells. And the earlier not-quite-so-complex cells came from the ever-so-slightly-less-than-not-quite-so-complex cells.

Ok, let's turn it around. Here's a possible scenario for the first cells - they were just 'bubbles' with a lipid membrane or wall and with sea water on the inside. Pure mineral. Free lipids in the sea would be drawn into the membrane and the 'bubble' would grow. Turbulence in the water would cause large bubbles to pinch off into two bubbles. This is the very start. How complex is this?

These bubbles then become great containers for organic molecules, which pass in and out of the bubble. Some of these organic molecules can self-polymerise (form long chanins), and then become trapped inside the 'bubbles' as they are too large to migrate through the lipid membrane. Some of polymers could even duplicate themselves. But so far they don't "do" anything - they just sit inside their lipid containers.

But some polymers could be produced that are useful - say they catalyse the formation of more lipids. Now, those bubbles with lipid-producing polymers will grow more, as they have more lipids, and will then split more readily because they are larger, spreading more lipid bubbles about with the lipid-making polymers inside. And so life begins...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

cavediver writes: And so life begins...

it sounds simple enough

so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right?

it sounds simple enough so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right?

They are it just takes time. We are attempting to recreate in years what occurred over billions of years.

Scientists have already recreated the lipid cell membrane of cells and are working on the protein gates and other fundamental structures of cells.

It is just a matter of time.

---

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right?

All the test tubes in the world wouldn't hold a 100 trillionth of an ocean, Peg. Nor all the biologist in the world observe them for a half billion years. Other then that, yeah, you're right.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

so simple in fact that scientists should be able to reproduce that simple process in a lab, right?

It's a work in progress

What I wrote is based on Jack W. Szostak's ideas - who has just won the 2009 Nobel for Medicine - check his website here

so when they say they are working on a 'synthetic cellular system' does this mean they will create something artificially, or will they be using something that is already existing??

it would be good if that happened in reality, but with regard to the TOE, it has not happened even though its been adequately shown that the living cell cannot evolve.

Could you show some evidence that living cells cannot evolve.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008