138 replies to this topic

[Aegist]

The weakest part of the evolution theory is the making of the first protocell. There is debate as to whether cells developed metabolism first or genes first. While lots of the organic molecules in cells have been able to be manufactured under simulated primordial soup conditions, more complex molecules like protiens I don't believe have been manufactured in primordial soup conditions.

While I think evolution is a hugely more likely theory than god going 'click', It is not proven to have created the first cell. But then again we have neither the time nor the space (entire earth over billions of years) to have a protocell randomly form.

Evolution of species is pretty well proven though. The human lineage is a little murky but I buy it. I like a part of a carl sagan clip where he says just look at the artificial selection that we have imposed over our crop and livestock populations over a few thousand years, then imagine what could happen over billions of years.

I would say since the creation of the first cell has not been proven to have been able to occur via evolution,  there is room for both theories so long as ID people only say god designed the first cells (which I don't think any of them do).

*Edit* I got to watching some more of Sagan's videos, and while he definitely simplifies somethings and states them as a law, I enjoyed watching the evolutionary path from the first eukaryote to humans.
Sagan's 4 billion years.

The formation of the first protocell isn't a weak part of evolution, it is a poorly understood part. Just because a stage or section of a theory is not understood, or difficult to resolve does not make the theory weaker. The theory of evolution is as strong as a theory can get. it is theoretically proven, it is empirically observed and documented, and the theory correlates with the reality completely. The theory of evolution is an accurate theory describing how nature works.

Now how that theoretical framework *actually* crafted the first protocell is a sub-question. There are a million possible answers, and only one of the answers would affect the theory, the result of "It can't", and we have no reason to suspect that that will be the actual answer. Just because we don't know whow it was done currently means nothing.

We don't know how the pyramids were built, but we don't therefore deny their existence.

[struct]

I do hope we get smarter as a species.

Let's try to work on being smarter individuals first.

The weakest part of the evolution theory is the making of the first protocell. There is debate as to whether cells developed metabolism first or genes first. While lots of the organic molecules in cells have been able to be manufactured under simulated primordial soup conditions, more complex molecules like protiens I don't believe have been manufactured in primordial soup conditions.

I don't think that the transitions/gradations into more complex molecules/mitochondria/cells occur in such jirks so that one can point at the first cell (protocell). Another niche that scientists are considering for the evolution of life is on the bottom of the ocean at the interface between tectonic plates (under high pressure and temperature). However I wouldn't discard the primordial soup; if we put some spices and warm it up a little bit it may still be good.

[lucid]

The formation of the first protocell isn't a weak part of evolution, it is a poorly understood part. Just because a stage or section of a theory is not understood, or difficult to resolve does not make the theory weaker.

Sure it does. If a part of a theory is less understood it is weaker by definition. The less and less we understand about any theory, the weaker and weaker it becomes. In the extreme case, if we understand almost nothing in our theory, then it is quite weak and quite possibly false. That said we know a lot about evolution on many different levels and it certainly has the most predictive power.

The theory of evolution is as strong as a theory can get. it is theoretically proven.

Well it would be stronger if it could be demonstrated empirically, but as I mentioned earlier, we don't have a whole earth and billions of years to do an experiment (though we have successfully tested parts).

Now how that theoretical framework *actually* crafted the first protocell is a sub-question. There are a million possible answers, and only one of the answers would affect the theory, the result of "It can't", and we have no reason to suspect that that will be the actual answer. Just because we don't know how it was done currently means nothing.

It is not as if there are minor disagreements about how the first cell was made. The disagreements are quite large. To say something is proven without knowing how is false. So as I was saying, we know certainly that evolution occurs today. But it is not yet proven that it is responsible for the creation of the first cell.

We don't know how the pyramids were built, but we don't therefore deny their existence.

Well if we had a theory about how they were built, such as 'aliens built them', yet we don't know how they were built, then our theory isn't particularly likely to be correct.

I think we are on the same page though. I am convinced that evolution is responsible for the first cell, but since it has not been demonstrated empirically, it isn't proven yet. (Plenty other parts of evolution have been proven though, that is why I think the formation of the protocell is the weakest part.) Perhaps we just have different standards for 'proof'. Cheers.

[pSimonKey]

I have no idea what the next mutation will be or even if there will be a next one. One would presume that from a darwinian perspective mutation will occur and the better adaption will triumph. I would presume that as the major mutation of humans is the brain so somewhere within that there would be a better adaption, an evolution perhaps.

I get an ever so strong impression that you have no idea what a mutation is.

When we talk about mutations, we aren't talking about this:


we're talking about this:


Understand the difference?

Okay, I see the difference. I have been useing the word in the "a change or alteration, as in form or nature" and in the "the act or process of changing" way.

[pSimonKey]

There is not room for both theories in science. ID's are kooks or manipulators. They choose to be either ignorant or they seek to profit off the ignorance of others. That one dime of public money or an inch of public space is invested in this crackpot stuff is ridiculous. And that includes being able to write off donations to ID projects.

Belief in science excludes the supernatural. If you want to be a poet have at the universe with all your imagination. If you preach science then there can be no debate. ID's is hokum, right up there with the seven elephants that hold up the earth.

There is surely room for many theories depending upon which school of thought or instruments one measures with. A science without flexibility also becomes fundamental and blinded or blinkered by it's own reason.
I find fundamentalist of any school or measurement system to be kooks and biased.
I choose science to be the current method to (trying!!) convey information regarding the nature of things if I'm with scientist but have found that theories can translate so that understanding, from both side of a discussion can gain and/or share. A good example would be buddhism.

Edit by Live Forever: Fixed quote, it was bugging me.

Edited by Live Forever, 14 June 2007 - 01:00 PM.

[JonesGuy]

"And then a miracle occured.." is not science. ID relies on this one tenet. ID is therefore not science.

"big bang" sounds much the same, doesn't it!?

"The Big Bang" was a nickname coined by the detractors of the theory, in order to mock it. It's not a proper metaphor for the theory.

[pSimonKey]

but still the theory is basically, there was nothing and then there was something, is it not!?

[Live Forever]

but still the theory is basically, there was nothing and then there was something, is it not!?

No, the theory is that we can track the expansion of the universe back to a single point in time. When we go back far enough, the mass gets dense enough (a very, very short time afterwards; on the order of about to 10^-43 seconds), our current models of physics break down. (the numbers you start getting don't make sense) A similar thing happens when trying to use conventional physics to calculate what happens for a black hole, but we know they exist through observational data. The problem is not with what happened, but with our current understanding of how universes are formed, and the mathematical models of physics that we currently use which are note adequate to describe the phenomenon.

See http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Big_Bang for more info on the timeline.

[pSimonKey]

Okay. So what is needed is "dark" or "dense" mathematics? Mathematics that exists before the formation of matter and so time??

[Live Forever]

I have no idea what type of mathematics is needed. If I was smart enough to answer that, I would invent it.

[pSimonKey]

I bet God knows the type of mathematics that can be used

[Live Forever]

I bet God knows the type of mathematics that can be used 

If there were a God, I am sure She would have no trouble with the equations.

[struct]

There is surely room for many theories depending upon which school of thought or instruments one measures with. A science without flexibility also becomes fundamental and blinded or blinkered by it's own reason.
I find fundamentalist of any school or measurement system to be kooks and biased.

Yea, scientists are fundamentalists especially the mathematicians; they just don't seem to tolerate different opinions. For example they say 2+3=5 and totally ignore any other answer like they know it all. We should respect others opinion on that; maybe it's 7 or 73, or something else (who knows!?). We also should teach the kids all of these different approaches and answers to give them different perspective and they can pick and choose. If you give them one answer then you may be a fundamentalist.
Who wants to be called 'fundie'!?

[pSimonKey]

42

[amar]

Intelujint desine.

[struct]

Intelujint desine.

[lol]
you probably meant this:

Intelligunt Desine
Submitted by Meri on Sun, 08/27/2006 - 2:27pm.
This is what happens when you stress religious bs stories over science in the public school system...sad and hilarious at the same time.

Here are some interesting interpretations of nature from test papers and essays submitted to science and health teachers by junior high, high school, and college (!) students in the U.S.  (From an Ann Landers column/Popular Science).

-When you breathe, you inspire.  When you do not breathe, you expire.

-H2O is hot water, and CO2 is cold water.

-To collect fumes of sulphur, hold a deacon over a flame in a test tube.

-When you smell an odorless gas, it is probably carbon monoxide.

-Water is composed of two gins, Oxygin and Hydrogin.  Oxygin is pure gin.  Hydrogin is gin and water.  (This is my personal favorite.)

-Three kinds of blood vessels are arteries, vanes and caterpillars.

-Blood flows down one leg and up the other.

-Respiration is composed of two acts, first inspiration, and then expectoration.

-The moon is a planet just like the earth, only it is even deader.

-Artifical insemination is when the farmer does it to the cow instead of the bull.

-Dew is formed on leaves when the sun shines down on them and makes them perspire.

-A super-saturated solution is one that holds more than it can hold.

-Mushrooms always grow in damp places and so they look like umbrellas.

-The body consists of three parts-- the brainium, the borax and the abominable cavity.  The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs, and the abominable cavity contains the bowels, of which there are five- a,e, i, o, and u.

-The pistol of a flower is its only protection against insects.

-The alimentary canal is located in the northern part of Indiana.

-The skeleton is what is left after the insides have been taken out the outsides have been taken off.  The purpose of the skeleton is something to hitch the meat to.

-A permanent set of teeth consists of eight canines, eight cupids, two molars, and eight cuspidors.

-The tides are a fight between the Earth and moon.  All water tends towards the moon, because there is no water in the moon, and nature abhors a vacuum.  I forget where the sun joins in this fight.

-A fossil is an extinct animal.  The older it is, the more extinct it is.

-Equator: A menagerie lion running around the Earth through Africa.  (This one is so damned funny it nearly made me cry.)

-Germinate: To become a naturalized German.

-Liter: A nest of young puppies.

-Magnet: Something you find crawling all over a dead cat.

-Momentum: What yo give a person when they are going away.

-Planet: A body of Earth surrounded by sky.

-Rhubarb: A kind of celery gone bloodshot.

-Vacuum: A large, empty space where the pope lives.

-Before giving a blood transfusion, find out if the blood is affirmative or negative.

-To remove dust from the eye, pull the eye down over the nose.

-For a nosebleed: Put the nose much lower than the body until the heart stops.

-For drowning: Climb on top the person and move up and down to make artificial perspiration.

-For fainting: Rub the person's chest or, if a lady, rub her arm above the hand instead.  Or put the head between the knees of the nearest medical doctor. (oh my)

-For dog bite: Put the dog away for several days.  If he has not recovered, then kill it.

-For asphyxiation: Apply artificial respiration until the patient is dead.

-For head cold: Use an agonizer to spray the nose until it drops in your throat. 

-To keep milk from turning sour: Keep it in the cow.

-Nitrogen is not found in Ireland because it is not found in a free state.

Okay, so you might not be able to lay all of the blame for poorly educated children at religious instruction in school....but I prefer to.

(taken from http://www.atheistagenda.org/node/556)

[Aegist]

I have no idea what the next mutation will be or even if there will be a next one. One would presume that from a darwinian perspective mutation will occur and the better adaption will triumph. I would presume that as the major mutation of humans is the brain so somewhere within that there would be a better adaption, an evolution perhaps.

I get an ever so strong impression that you have no idea what a mutation is.

When we talk about mutations, we aren't talking about this:


we're talking about this:


Understand the difference?

Okay, I see the difference. I have been useing the word in the "a change or alteration, as in form or nature" and in the "the act or process of changing" way.

Ignoring the obvious flasification of that picture, the truth is that the mutation in the second image, a change in base pair, can infact cause changes like that in the first image. The important thing to realise though, is that the *real* change is the base pair mutation, the phenotypic change (the outwardly visible change) is only a consequence of the genetic change.

So mutation must be understood on its genetic basis first and foremost. All outward changes mutations are conseuqences of genetic mutations, and shouldn't be judged by how extreme or subtle the phenotypic changes are, but by how extreme or subtle the genetic changes are.

[pSimonKey]

So at what point does the external environment influence change and so a mutation?

[austix]

There is surely room for many theories depending upon which school of thought or instruments one measures with. A science without flexibility also becomes fundamental and blinded or blinkered by it's own reason.
I find fundamentalist of any school or measurement system to be kooks and biased.
I choose science to be the current method to (trying!!) convey information regarding the nature of things if I'm with scientist but have found that theories can translate so that understanding, from both side of a discussion can gain and/or share. A good example would be buddhism.

Gymnasts are flexible. Science is open to discovery. ID is supernatural discussion. Hokum. What are you suggesting that science sometimes embrace a supernatural explanantion.

Religious kooks of which there are an abundance in the western world and most obviously in the American south use the discusion to sway use of public funds. America's shining moment was the separartion of church and state. They were helped by the French (yes those guys we all make fun of, gave America it's jump start) who had convieniently just slaughtered about 20,000 RC priests. A shame they didn't get them all while they were on a role.

Some of the founding fathers were brilliant revolutionaries. They understood that as soon as you let boogie men like god in on the decision making process you stall as a society, if not go backward. Ad nauseum.
The point--there is not room for flexibility in science because science is open ended. Show me proof that something I thought was black is actually white I'll change my opinion immediately. Any scientist who says he belives in ID is making money off his position and doesn't believe it for a moment.

Half of all Americans do not accept evolution. And they are easy marks for con men who prey on their ignorance.

Buddhism? I have no idea what you're getting at here but Buddhism in it's original form rejects the idea of a supreme being. And so should we all. Namaste

[luv2increase]

slaughtered about 20,000 RC priests. A shame they didn't get them all while they were on a role.

You are a sick individual.

Any scientist who says he belives in ID is making money off his position and doesn't believe it for a moment.

Are you a psychic? How did this reasoning fathom about?



Do you mind posting some sources from all of which you write. Most of it needs some sources to be verified.

You also have the mindset of Saddam Hussein and Hitler. They were some nasty people, and from what you write, you are right in the leagues with them. Congrats

[Aegist]

So at what point does the external environment influence change and so a mutation?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, so I will answer the two questions I think you might be asking:
1. How does the environment cause mutations?
The DNA replication machinery isn't perfect, so mutations can arise spontaneously without external influences. But it is well documented that there are many mutagens, chemicals or other physical or energetic causes of mutation. Radiation being the most obvious one, with UV light being one form of radiation. Intense UV exposure on cells is a regularly used method in labs to produce many mutants in a petri dish full of bacteria.

If I understand correctly, anything which is considered "Carcinogenic" to humans, is actually mutagenic.

2. At what point is a mutation selected. How does a mutation make a difference?
It makes a difference (or not) as soon as it is made. It makes a difference in the amount of DNA being replicated (if it has inserted more DNA, or removed some). It makes a difference in whether it creates a new protein code, or whether it makes a current protein longer or shorter, thus more or less resources must be used to produce (or not produce) this new construct. The protein which is now being created (or no longer being created) has an affect depending on how useful it is (or was).If it s useless, it is adding to waste in the cell, and creating more work for the cell ...I could go on like this for about another few hundred lines I think. The cascade of affects of a mutation can be huge, or it could have no consequence whatsoever.

And the point I guess, is that every single step of this has an influence in nature. It affects how much energy u need to produce, thus impacts food, plus all of the possible actuall changes caused if the protein does in fact do something (which could be near on anything)

[luv2increase]

Watch the news.

End of Days?

[luv2increase]

You all keep trying to put a scientific result to all that is happening right before our very eyes within this crazy world will be sorely disappointed. This is sad but true. Good luck to all of you. I, for one, am preparing myself for the unseemly inevitable that is occurring right before us, in our faces.


Good luck!

[Live Forever]

If the definition of the word science can be expanded into all of the social sciences, then you can most assuredly "put a scientific result to all that is happening right before our very eyes within this crazy world".

But, really, that is beside the point of this thread. Back to the debate...

[Aegist]

You all keep trying to put a scientific result to all that is happening right before our very eyes within this crazy world will be sorely disappointed.  This is sad but true.  Good luck to all of you.  I, for one, am preparing myself for the unseemly inevitable that is occurring right before us, in our faces. 


Good luck!

No doubt the people living in Pompeii when that was drowned in Ash thought the same thing. The end of days....

No doubt the people in Europe during the black death thought the same thing.

No doubt europeans stuck in the middle of world war 2 thought the same thing.

2000 years worth of broken promises, and you still believe.

[airquote] Jesus isn't the messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Now Piss off! [/airquote]

[manofsan]

This was the funniest caricature of intelligent design that I've ever seen:



It's from The Family Guy. LOL, just as good as Flying Spaghetti Monster

[pSimonKey]

So at what point does the external environment influence change and so a mutation?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, so I will answer the two questions I think you might be asking:
1. How does the environment cause mutations?
The DNA replication machinery isn't perfect, so mutations can arise spontaneously without external influences. But it is well documented that there are many mutagens, chemicals or other physical or energetic causes of mutation. Radiation being the most obvious one, with UV light being one form of radiation. Intense UV exposure on cells is a regularly used method in labs to produce many mutants in a petri dish full of bacteria.

If I understand correctly, anything which is considered "Carcinogenic" to humans, is actually mutagenic.

2. At what point is a mutation selected. How does a mutation make a difference?
It makes a difference (or not) as soon as it is made. It makes a difference in the amount of DNA being replicated (if it has inserted more DNA, or removed some). It makes a difference in whether it creates a new protein code, or whether it makes a current protein longer or shorter, thus more or less resources must be used to produce (or not produce) this new construct. The protein which is now being created (or no longer being created) has an affect depending on how useful it is (or was).If it s useless, it is adding to waste in the cell, and creating more work for the cell ...I could go on like this for about another few hundred lines I think. The cascade of affects of a mutation can be huge, or it could have no consequence whatsoever.

And the point I guess, is that every single step of this has an influence in nature. It affects how much energy u need to produce, thus impacts food, plus all of the possible actuall changes caused if the protein does in fact do something (which could be near on anything)

Thank you very much for this dialogue Aegist, I am most appreciative of the time you have taken to answer some of my queries.
I have a further
So could I be right in saying that
DNA is an "accident" without (as of yet) a clearly defined origin
it is in a constant state of mutation/adaption/evolution
with no clear aim other than to continue to self replicate and/or mutate
DNA has no other "purpose"!?

What is it [DNA] evolving for?
Why does it have a survival instinct?
Does it have a survival instinct?
How does it know?
Could there be a perfect DNA with no further need for evolution?


Thanks again

[pSimonKey]

Is there any area/s in science in which scientist "believe" they have the/an answer/s?

[Lazarus Long]

Is there any area/s in science in which scientist "believe" they have the/an answer/s?

All the time and everywhere in science, they are called "hypotheses" and must by definition be "testable", recognizable assumptions, not promoted by unchallengeable conviction or claims of an assailable faith. People in this debate should stop confusing science with the scientist. Science is not promoting a faith of any kind but human psychology does tend to rely behaviorally on it and scientists are after all just human.

However that passion that comes from the conviction of one's perception in their personal observations has led to some very great discoveries and achievements, not only in science but in the social areas as well.

[pSimonKey]

Science is not promoting a faith of any kind but human psychology does tend to rely behaviorally on it and scientists are after all just human.

So is science deeper than psychology (which comes first)?