Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
99 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (2 members, 97 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,046 Year: 5,158/6,534 Month: 1/577 Week: 69/135 Day: 0/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin- would he have changed his theory?
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 45 of 195 (151568)
10-21-2004 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:17 AM


How exactly do you think the complexity of microrganisms hurts Darwin's theory? I believe the nature of complexity found in them strongly supports his theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:17 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:41 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 79 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 7:05 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 58 of 195 (151584)
10-21-2004 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:41 AM


Because it makes the problem of first life incredibly hard........especially with the extremely limited time span.

Why? There's no reason to think the complexity of the first life, and the complexity of modern microscopic organisms are related.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:41 AM SirPimpsalot has taken no action

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 64 of 195 (151596)
10-21-2004 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by SirPimpsalot
10-21-2004 9:59 AM


Jack, first life wouldn't have to be as complex as today micro-organisms, but it WOULD have to be incredibly complex (by far more complex than any single evolutionary adaptation).......and it would have to have formed within a relatively short period of time.

I don't consider half a billion years a short period of time at all.

I forget, how many of just the right amino acids would have to combine in just the right way to make a single protein molecule? At least dozens, if I recall correctly......and then at least dozens of full formed protein molecules would then also have to combine in just the right way.

We don't know. Current estimates suggest that somewhere between 60 and a 100 are required, IIRC (which I may not). Note however that this isn't 'in just the right way' - there is not only one answer that evolution need hit, but several. Note also that amino acids do not just randomly connect, but preferentially connect in a manner that may (or may not, to be fair) have aided the process. Finally, note that some organic compounds (such as lipids) have properties that lead them to spontaneously form cell-like structures.

And, once more, the origin of life is irrelevant to Darwin's theory - he does not deal with the origin of life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-21-2004 9:59 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 7:46 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 82 of 195 (151897)
10-22-2004 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 7:05 AM


Please use the reply button on the post you are actually replying to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 7:05 AM SirPimpsalot has taken no action

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 87 of 195 (151904)
10-22-2004 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 7:46 AM


We both know this is nothing in geographical terms........especially when you consider that the following 3.5 BILLION years of evolution couldn't produce anything more complex than a sponge of jelly fish

Crap. Half a billion years is a decent length of time in any timescale.

The DNA of the organism would have to have certain info encoded on it that was placed there just at random.........like how to duplicate itself, how to metabolize........it's like a book writing itself.

DNA? Current hypothesises do not suggest there be any DNA in the first replicators. And it's not like a book writing itself at all.

Maybe there wasn't just one combo of protein molecules that would have gotten the job done, but it's certainly one of a short list.........wouldn't you agree?

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. Perhaps 1 in 1011 - which is well within the bounds of possible random assembly.

We have no reason to think that amino acids have natural affinities which favor the creation of life.......and, even if they did, that can't be just a coincidence. Either fact, whichever proves to be true, speaks of intelligent design.

It would speak of no such thing, at all.

If lipids are organic, and therefore made by life, I don't see how this aids the theory of life springing from non-life.

Lipids will form spontaneously in the conditions believed to have been present on the early earth, and in some numbers.

This is true, but materialists do, and for all intents and purposes, in this day and age, evolution and materialism are practically synonyms.

This is simply false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 7:46 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 8:07 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 105 of 195 (151926)
10-22-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 8:07 AM


MAXIMUM of half a billion years.........for something to happen that has an incredibly slight chance of happening

We don't know what the chance is, but across the earth and with half a billion years even unlikely things can be very likely to happen (see below).

DNA or RNA, there's still a basic amount of info that they'd have to possess.

Who said anything about RNA? The simplest replicator is likely to be much simpler.

You did do the math, didn't you? One in 1011 is one in a TRILLION........and that's for the formation of ONE protein molecule..........and then we'd still need, what was the number you quoted? 60 to 100 of those to coincidentally combine in a sequence which produces life........

What are you talking about, for one protein? I'm talking about the arrangements of amino acids that produce a replicator.

Yes, I did the math. Suppose our something has a 1 in 1011 chance of happening in a given trial. Now, suppose that there are one hundred sites on the earth at which it can occur and that a trial occurs once every 3.65 days (which are extremely conservative guesses. In half a billion years that's 102102(5*108) = 5*1012 trials. That makes the chance of our 'unlikely' event happening at least once during the course of the journey very close to 1.

What is a lipid, anyway? Because I've never heard of anyone coaxing chemicals into forming anything more complex than an amino acid before.

A lipid is a fat or oil, essentially. They can be significantly simpler molecules than an amino acid.

(edit: see here http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/lipids.htm )

This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 10-22-2004 08:53 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 8:07 AM SirPimpsalot has taken no action

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 188 of 195 (152705)
10-25-2004 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 4:29 PM


What? No, it's been decoded for, I dunno, 50 years or more. Here it is:

Just a pedant's note, but the genetic code to amino acid conversion is not exactly the same for all life on earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 12:08 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 190 of 195 (152792)
10-25-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
10-25-2004 12:08 PM


Indeed. I understand mitochondria have a slightly different code, which substantiates endosymbiosis as the explanation of their origin.

It's not just mitochondria, there are about sixteen known varients.

But the fact that the standard code is shared by almost every organism is a pretty powerful argument for common descent.

Not only that but the coding pattern itself seems to have been shaped by natural selection - in that of the possible codings the ones which are used have a high 'fault tolerance' in that errors will tend to produce either the same amino acid or a similar one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 12:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 4:59 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 192 of 195 (152997)
10-26-2004 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by crashfrog
10-25-2004 4:59 PM


Chill, man, I meant no offence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2004 4:59 PM crashfrog has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022