Jump to content
Science Forums

Evolution Pros and Cons


Recommended Posts

Questor I think asking you what you think defines "new life form" is a legitimate question. If indeed all you had from the earth was DNA and had never seen any Terran life form how would you tell the DNA from one species from the DNA of another species? If you had, say, the DNA from an elephant, a donkey, a horse, a bear, a dog, a lion, a tiger, a gorilla, a human, a orangutan, a rhesus monkey a dolphin and a shark would you be able just from DNA to tell how many species of animal you had? How would you go about telling the different between a horse and a donkey or a human and a chimp or a dolphin and a elephant? Would it be based on number of chromosomes? number of genes? size of genomes? How would you tell? Lets make it easy. Lets say you had the complete DNA of a horse, a donkey, a chimp and a human of the four which two would be more alike? Which two can reproduce? Which two have the most unlike DNA? Would any of those things help you decide which animals were more closely related? Simply by looking at the DNA you really couldn't conclude much from the samples, not even if they were different species. Human and chimp DNA are quite close to each other, horses and donkeys are not even near as close but horses and donkeys can reproduce and look and act quite similarly. Humans and chimps are so close they probably would be concluded to have come from the same species but they do not reproduce with each other(there is some people who say they can but no one has ever tried it) I would have to ask again, how would you define a different life form? What makes you think one species is easy to tell from another? In come cases animals and plants that are virtually identical to each other to the eye are totally different species and cannot reproduce. The main reason you cannot see genetic changes from centuries ago that are new species today is that we didn't know about genes until less than a hundred years ago and no genes are known from then to compare. So we don't know what the gens were back then or if changes have taken place since then. In general human terms the more complex an animal is the slower any change from one species to another is. Species change, some do, some don't, it would be impossible to pick out a species and monitor it to see when it changes into another species because it might not change, it might become extinct, it might not change at all. The is no way to individually say who is changing and who is not. but once a change happens it can still be difficult to see. I breed North American native fishes, mostly dwarf sunfishes, there are several species from different habitats. all are quite similar but different species none the less. It's quite easy to see these fishes and the range of species as evolution. Even among the same species there is often differentiation that is not species but still different enough to tell from what region a particular fish came from. continued reproductive isolation would "presumably" eventually result in a new species, maybe, but the idea is clearly shown with fishes.I think you are expecting an unreasonable thing to happen, "a new species will just suddenly appear, labeled as "new species" and be so different anyone or every one would look at it and say wow that is a new species, wasn't there last week but it is new now. That just isn't going to happen, even if a species did indeed happen in one generation it would no doubt be so similar to the parent species you would need gene studies to know for sure. I have participated in new species searches, we catch animals that look like they should be new species for sure but are very similar if not identical genetically and not reproductively isolated so they are not new species. it's also possible for a animals to be so similar it doesn't show to the naked eye but when checked genetically it proves to be different enough to be reproductively isolated and so a new species. It even possible for different species to be geographically isolated be very dissimilar genetically and visually and still hybridize when exposed to each other in the wild. There is a species of sucker in a western US state that started out as two different species, a third species was introduced, this third species hybridized with one of the other two and this hybrid was then able to hybridize with the other species and then these new fish were reproductively successful with each other. all three of the original species have became rare but the hybrid is spreading and becoming the dominant species. The hybrid doesn't reproduce with any of the three original species. it's not a white black, off on thing, species is a very flexible thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This observation is incorrect for several reasons.  First, it misidentifies the term biological evolution, which refers to changes in traits of a population of living organisms from one generation to

This thread is certainly about creationism, and specifically stealth creationism and Intelligent Design creationism. The "Pros and Cons" argument is analogous to the "Strengths and Weaknesses" rhetor

Wrong again, Darth Questor. There are several of us here who are experts, to the extent that we are more knowledgeable about evolution, biochemistry and genetics than 99% of the general population.

Since I think all things will ultimate be described and evaluated by their particulate presence and activity, here are a few more quotes to ponder:

 

''If we add together the three probabilities (that of amino acids being laid out correctly, that of their all being left-handed, and that of their all being joined by peptide links), then we come face to face with the astronomical figure of 1 in 10950. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring.

 

Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a "trial and error" method, without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

 

PROTEIN SYNTHESIS

 

The ribosome reads the messenger RNA, and arranges the amino acids according to the information it receives there. In the illustrations, the consecutive order of the [ val, cys, and ala amino acids ], established by the ribosome and transfer RNA, can be seen. All proteins in nature are produced by this complex process. No protein comes about by "accident."

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein.

 

One of the foremost proponents of the theory of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, states the impossibility the theory has fallen into in these terms:

 

So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it.249

 

This admission by one of evolution's foremost authorities clearly reflects the logical muddle the theory of evolution is built on. The above statements in Dawkins's book Climbing Mount Improbable are a striking example of circular reasoning which actually explains nothing: "If we are here, then that means that evolution happened."

 

As we have seen, even the most prominent of the proponents of evolution confess that the theory is buried in impossibility when it comes to accounting for the first stage.''

''Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.

 

The calculations we gave above to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only "the selection of the amino acids" is left to chance. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible.

 

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins." However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in a nonliving structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of design and engineering, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

 

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by accident." Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

 

What we have been discussing so far is the impossibility of just one protein's coming about by chance. However, in the human body alone there are some 100,000 proteins functioning. Furthermore, there are about 1.5 million species named, and another 10 million are believed to exist. Although many similar proteins are used in many life forms, it is estimated that there must be 100 million or more types of protein in the plant and animal worlds. And the millions of species which have already become extinct are not included in this calculation. In other words, hundreds of millions of protein codes have existed in the world. If one considers that not even one protein can be explained by chance, it is clear what the existence of hundreds of millions of different proteins must mean.''

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moon, don't you think the best way to identify and correlate life is by its genome? if we knew the genome of every life form and could tell which genes caused a certain trait, we would then be able to better describe and classify existing life and extinct life. This cannot be done now, but we will eventually be able to do it

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I think all things will ultimate be described and evaluated by their particulate presence and activity, here are a few more quotes to ponder:

 

''If we add together the three probabilities (that of amino acids being laid out correctly, that of their all being left-handed, and that of their all being joined by peptide links), then we come face to face with the astronomical figure of 1 in 10950. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring.

 

Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a "trial and error" method, without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

 

PROTEIN SYNTHESIS

 

The ribosome reads the messenger RNA, and arranges the amino acids according to the information it receives there. In the illustrations, the consecutive order of the [ val, cys, and ala amino acids ], established by the ribosome and transfer RNA, can be seen. All proteins in nature are produced by this complex process. No protein comes about by "accident."

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein.

 

One of the foremost proponents of the theory of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, states the impossibility the theory has fallen into in these terms:

 

So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it.249

 

This admission by one of evolution's foremost authorities clearly reflects the logical muddle the theory of evolution is built on. The above statements in Dawkins's book Climbing Mount Improbable are a striking example of circular reasoning which actually explains nothing: "If we are here, then that means that evolution happened."

 

As we have seen, even the most prominent of the proponents of evolution confess that the theory is buried in impossibility when it comes to accounting for the first stage.''

''Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.

 

The calculations we gave above to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only "the selection of the amino acids" is left to chance. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible.

 

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins." However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in a nonliving structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of design and engineering, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

 

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by accident." Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

 

What we have been discussing so far is the impossibility of just one protein's coming about by chance. However, in the human body alone there are some 100,000 proteins functioning. Furthermore, there are about 1.5 million species named, and another 10 million are believed to exist. Although many similar proteins are used in many life forms, it is estimated that there must be 100 million or more types of protein in the plant and animal worlds. And the millions of species which have already become extinct are not included in this calculation. In other words, hundreds of millions of protein codes have existed in the world. If one considers that not even one protein can be explained by chance, it is clear what the existence of hundreds of millions of different proteins must mean.''

 

At one time these problems with the unlikely chemical reactions needed to make life were indeed legitimate concerns. the idea of chemicals coming together by chance were so low that life on earth wouldn't even be likely to occur once in the life of the universe much less in the early life of a planet.

 

Since those days we've come to know that even for reactions that are highly unlikely by simple chance, when you have so many quadrillions of molecules reacting over and over these events become much more likely, then there is the fact that a great many of these reactions are actually much more likely to happen than simple chance. The excess energy of the sun and chemical energy from within the earth drive these reactions toward complexity.

 

Any reaction that would be impossible if they were indeed random chance reaction are actually unlikely not to happen. These reactions are not only are very likely to happen under the circumstances of the environment of excess energy these reactions are quite common and driven to happen by the natural laws of chemistry. It is no longer correct to say these reactions are driven by random chance.

 

As the reactions create more and more complex chemicals the complexity of the chemical actually makes the more complex chemicals more likely to come about. Carbon chemistry works this way naturally, it's not random chance, it's random inevitability. These reactions and their byproducts are not just accidents they are actually driven by natural processes to make ever more complex chemicals.

 

At some point these chemicals, probably catalysts, begin to make copies of themselves, this allows even more complex chemicals to come about. You don't need a cell to randomly come into being, the first true life form was very simple compared to even the most simple life form we know today.

 

Several steps in different places were probably required for chemcials to reporduce. In modren cells these things all take place in the same cell at the same time but then many of these proceses were isloated outside cells and or in different cells. The coming together of all the right processes is not a one in universe event it's something that happens naturally every time the right conditions exist in the correct time frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon, don't you think the best way to identify and correlate life is by its genome? if we knew the genome of every life form and could tell which genes caused a certain trait, we would then be able to better describe and classify existing life and extinct life. This cannot be done now, but we will eventually be able to do it

 

The genome of some species is for more exact than the genome of others. There is no way to look at a series of gens and say this is a species or this is a new species. some species have more variation than others, it's just the way things work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moon, if we knew the complete genome and gene function of every creature would that not be the best way to differentiate or describe?

 

You said: '' As the reactions create more and more complex chemicals the complexity of the chemical actually makes the more complex chemicals more likely to come about. Carbon chemistry works this way naturally, it's not random chance, it's random inevitability. These reactions and their byproducts are not just accidents they are actually driven by natural processes to make ever more complex chemicals.''

Would you explain the natural processes that cause these reactions? I did not learn these in organic chemistry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon, if we knew the complete genome and gene function of every creature would that not be the best way to differentiate or describe?

 

You said: '' As the reactions create more and more complex chemicals the complexity of the chemical actually makes the more complex chemicals more likely to come about. Carbon chemistry works this way naturally, it's not random chance, it's random inevitability. These reactions and their byproducts are not just accidents they are actually driven by natural processes to make ever more complex chemicals.''

Would you explain the natural processes that cause these reactions? I did not learn these in organic chemistry.

 

Possibly you took organic chemistry before this idea caught hold :) Seriously, read "Life as we do not know it" by Peter Ward, I've read several books that address this concept but he is, I think, the best. My explanation may not be completely correct but my understanding is that given the energy of chemicals from inside the earth and energy from the sun chemical complexity is driven toward more complexity using this energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a biochemist could shed some light on these observations:

 

I for one am not going to sit here and respond individually for every large block of quote mined text you can find until you have gone through that entire creationist website(and all the others ones on the internet). In this last text-block, Richard Dawkins was quoted out of context and his explanations overlooked in the same way the Darwin quote earlier was.

I then quickly googled another one of the quotes from the page, to find it belongs to Muslim creationist moron Harun Yahyah. If you are unfamiliar with just how dense Yahyah is, see here.

The dishonesty and shortcomings of the creationist website quoted has been demonstrated repeatedly, and it should not be taken to be a valid source of scientific information. It is a religious conspiracy theorist website and should not be taken seriously

 

Here is an excellent response to the "improbability of abiogenesis" nonsense spouted by many creationists

:Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

The talk origins archive is currently down for whatever reason, so that is from google cache.

And again, you would benefit from trying sources like wikipedia first:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

edit- interesting news article on some recent OOL research:

sciencedaily.com--Origin Of Life On Earth: Simple Fusion To Jump-start Evolution

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief! :doh: Allow me to play devil's advocate to borrow a metaphor. This thread is so not Biology already that by the time I finish typing I expect to find it in Silly Claims.

 

Let's call the spades. This is a science site. Creationism is religion. Questor is a creationist/religionist, not a scientist. Questor is not the poor little lamb here, he is the wolf. Time for the sherpherd's rod & sling. ;) :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good grief! :doh: Allow me to play devil's advocate to borrow a metaphor. This thread is so not Biology already that by the time I finish typing I expect to find it in Silly Claims.

 

Let's call the spades. This is a science site. Creationism is religion. Questor is a creationist/religionist, not a scientist. Questor is not the poor little lamb here, he is the wolf. Time for the sherpherd's rod & sling. ;) :)

Yea... and what Galapogos said too. ...but here's my $2's worth.

===

 

Without learning all about thermodynamics (or organic chemistry), can I get you to agree that the origin of life question is very different from the pros and cons of (Darwinian) evolution?

 

Sure there is an evolution-type process that works for many processes from star formation/death to the origin of life and even language changes; but the evolution of living things based on DNA and the various modifiers, promoters, inhibitors, and switches, and all of the mechanisms for changing expression, from copy number polymorphisms to actual translocation within the genome, and much we don't yet know about, allows for a rich diversity of lifeforms to arise.

...was that really all one sentence? ...sorry....

 

I think even the focus on Darwin is a bit misleading at times because he didn't know about chromosomes or genes. Molecular biology, cellular biology, embryology, genetics, genomics, and the newer epigenitics sure explain and predict a lot...

...of which I think we would still be aware, even if Darwin had never lived.

 

...and if you'll forgive the anthropomorphizing, God was very wise and careful in giving us the particular physics and chemistry that makes all this stuff inevitably work so well.

===

 

...and a quick note on entropy:

All that complexity (negative entropy) of developing a living thing is balanced when the thing dies.

 

In between, while living, the thing generates prodigious amounts of entropy, adding impetus to life's very thermodynamically favorable equation overall. Hence my variation of a favorite quote, "Life is just Nature's Way of turning Light into Heat,"

 

Life is just God's Way of maximizing Entropy.

 

~ :)

 

p.s. ...but let me repeat,

Questor, regardless of their comments on thermodynamics, do you see a problem with the logic of this thermodynamics page on the "refuters" website... the whole "evolution" vs. "origin of life" problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one am not going to sit here and respond individually for every large block of quote mined text you can find until you have gone through that entire creationist website(and all the others ones on the internet). In this last text-block, Richard Dawkins was quoted out of context and his explanations overlooked in the same way the Darwin quote earlier was.

I then quickly googled another one of the quotes from the page, to find it belongs to Muslim creationist moron Harun Yahyah. If you are unfamiliar with just how dense Yahyah is, see here.

The dishonesty and shortcomings of the creationist website quoted has been demonstrated repeatedly, and it should not be taken to be a valid source of scientific information. It is a religious conspiracy theorist website and should not be taken seriously

 

Here is an excellent response to the "improbability of abiogenesis" nonsense spouted by many creationists

:Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

The talk origins archive is currently down for whatever reason, so that is from google cache.

And again, you would benefit from trying sources like wikipedia first:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

edit- interesting news article on some recent OOL research:

sciencedaily.com--Origin Of Life On Earth: Simple Fusion To Jump-start Evolution

 

Thanks dude, I've had the flu or something equally bad fro about a week and a half, my mind feels like it's packed in grease, i was sure I'd read about those things but I wasn't sure where.

 

Questor, read the damned lies link, it explains most of what i was saying. If you are really interested in know the truth this should make an impression, I know of no creationist stumbling block that isn't easily answered by evolution and abiogenesis. If you know of one please let us know but simply repeating the old tired but easily proved wrong creationist ideas is useless dude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pyro, you used to have my respect. Since you are now a moderator, the fight can no longer be even. You have used your position to insult and demean me on numerous occasions with me being unable to answer in kind or defend myself. I don't need that or your snarky comments. You deliberately attempt to provoke me. Why not argue the issue on the thread or buzz off?
Ques,

Post #47 above was a straight response on the issues of this thread.

And the one that followed was light-hearted and humorous.

C'mon, you know the REAL reason you don't want me around. :)

I got the "cure" for your "infection". ;)

 

So, no more horsing around. From now on, my responses will be to the posts and not to you personally. No more mister snarky.

 

Okay, Skippy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a biochemist could shed some light on these observations:

''When it addresses this question, evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. …

This observation is incorrect for several reasons.

 

First, it misidentifies the term biological evolution, which refers to changes in traits of a population of living organisms from one generation to the next, with abiogenesis, which refers to the emergence of life from non-living matter. Theories about evolution don’t address abiogenesis.

 

Some theories of “prebiotic evolution” address changes in “populations” of chemical systems that are not considered conventionally living, however, so it’s reasonable, I think, to stretch the domain of evolution theories to nearly include abiogenesis. Also, when writing for a scientifically little educated audience, it’s not unreasonable to stretch the domains of scientific disciplines slightly to reduce the number of terms used, and make thus make the material easier to remember – although Darwinism Refuted.com, the source of the quoted text, does not appear to me to have been written with the intention of explaining science, but rather to encourage its rejection.

 

A more serious error is the suggestion that any well-accepted theories of abiogenesis claim that the first life was a fully formed cell.

 

All modern theories of abiogenesis of which I’m aware hypothesize that the first cells were preceded by increasingly complex prebiotic chemical mixtures. These theories appear to fall into two major classes: “replication first” and “metabolism first”.

 

According to the replication first hypothesis, through processes much more disorderly than usual biology, combinations of amino acids formed until, by chance, replicator molecules identical or nearly identical to RNA and their various transcription factories formed. Lacking true cell membranes, these prebiots were not alive by the full modern definition, but were unusual in that they could reproduce, quickly causing the prebiotic molecular ecosystem to be populated with much more similar molecules than before. Being capable of storing and transmitting heritable traits to subsequent generations, the only requisite for the usual definition of evolution, these prebiotic organisms can be considered the beginning of biological evolution. Through selection of RNA, and eventually DNA genes in this population, organisms better adapted to utilizing resources, especially in early history those more metabolically stable and efficient, eventually dominated the ecosystem.

 

According to the metabolism first hypothesis, the initial disorderly chemical and physical processes resulted in a population dominated not by RNA and the information-storage afforded by it, but by chemical systems that were metabolically stable and self-sustaining. In the competition between increasingly metabolically superior chemical systems, RNA, DNA, and their many transcription factors eventually appeared, giving an overwhelming advantage to chemical systems that had them and resulting in the “extinction” of those that did not.

 

An interesting feature of a metabolism first model by Robert Shapiro (see “A Simpler Origin for Life” (6/07 Scientific American)) is that it proposes that the cell wall so essential to modern organism was not grown by prebiotic organisms, but that these chemical systems occurred in naturally occurring “containers” such as cavities in rock. The appearance of true cell walls allowed organisms with them to expand into the much larger ecological niches of not-in-cavities-in-rocks, etc.

 

This was discussed in 12575.

According to this scenario [“evolution theory”, as defined by the Darwinism Refuted.com author Adnan Oktar], four billion years ago various chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.
As noted above, this is not an accurate description of biological science, because no well-accepted theory suggests that cells formed suddenly from prebiotic chemical compounds and environmental influences.
The first thing that must be said is that the claim that nonliving materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.
To the best of my knowledge, it’s true that no one has artificially assembled an entire living biological cell from its constituent non-living material. Though a challenging technological exercise in microscopic construction, there appears little scientific value to be gained in doing so, because, as noted above, no well-accepted biological theory suggests that such a thing has ever occurred.

 

It is important to most scientific theories of abiogenesis that many molecules, in particular amino acids, were formed by materials and conditions present early in Earth’s history. This has been replicated in labs. The 1952 Miller–Urey experiment is a famous example.

 

The rest of Oktar’s writing appears to me to be similarly flawed. Based on biographies such as the wikipedia link above and his personal webpage, I’m nearly certain these flaws are intentional, and that he is applying the same rhetorical techniques to scientific ideas with which he wishes people to conclude are false, such as theories of evolutionary biology, that he has applied to history that he wishes people to conclude is false, such as the Holocaust.

 

Oktar has no scientific education or accomplishments, a history of making inaccurate statement, and even criminal convictions for multiple rapes and blackmail. I don’t believe he is a good or helpful person, or that his writing has positive scientific or social value.

 

Questor, if you were unaware of Oktar’s history and mislead and confused by his deceptive rhetoric, you have my sympathy. If you sympathize with him or his principles, my feelings toward you are similar to my feelings toward him. Which of these describes you? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
If endosymbiosis is a common occurrence there should be numerous new life forms appearing at all times. Would you agree?
If endosymbiotic innovations are common and if endosymbiotic innovations regularly lead to new life forms, then one would expect new life forms to arise regularly.

Anyway, on this apparent doubt that you have about all life arising from single celled organisms, you claim to be non-religious, so presumably your brand of intelligent design doesn't involve any supernatural craftsmen who can produce multi-cellular life out of the blue. How does your theory account for the existence of multi-cellular life?

Link to post
Share on other sites
''You're aware of endosymbiosis(?)'' I am now, and the thought occurs to me that this process should be creating new species of life constantly. Or, by using this information new species should be relatively easy to create in the lab. If endosymbiosis is a common occurrence there should be numerous new life forms appearing at all times. Would you agree?

 

The problem here remains your need to see new species popping up all over the place like popcorn in a hot pot. New species do not pop up over night and when a new species come about it is a slow process and the new species is at first not much different from the parent species. The difference between say a largemouth bass and a small mouth bass wasn't one generation. It was probably thousands of generations of reproductive isolation at any one time the process would have been invisible, at first it would have just seemed to a geographical variation but eventually the differences would pile up until the two fish were different enough to the eye to be called different fish. At some point before that the fish would have been different species. Endosymbiosis wouldn't happen any faster than geographical isolation or regional variation. It would still take many generations of change to come about. When on organism merges with another it doesn't' happen all at once it also happens in stages. Mitochondria were probably either parasites or prey animals long before they became able to live inside a cell, at first they probably just existed and slowly started to resist being expelled by the host by contributing to the host in some way. Eventually hosts that didn't expel the bacteria had an advantage and the relationship started toward being symbiotic.

 

Endosymbiotic theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig, I am aware of the problems with Oktar's motives and lack of scientific training. I do not think he made up all the quotes or questions in his website that I have quoted from. If life was easy to create, it would have happened before now. It could come to pass that man may eventually be able to do so. When that happens all arguments become moot. I posted these quotes to stimulate thought and conversation, not to create enmity--which seems to occur every time a cherished theory comes under scrutiny. This to me is like religion, if you can't test it and can't prove it, why believe it? If we knew the truth unequivocally, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If there can be scientific refutation of the claims made on Oktar's

site, let it happen, you can't argue with the truth. I am not a molecular biochemist, but I am aware that the answer to life itself resides at the particulate level and spontaniety in reactions seldom if ever occurs. There is a reason for everything, so let's find the reason and prove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be propitious for me to explain my position on this thread and my own beliefs. I consider myself non-religious, but I believe there was some type of intelligent presence in the creation of the universe. What this creator was, I have no clue, although I am certain it was not one of the worshipped deities. I have had all the basic science courses including quan and qual, organic and bio chemistries. This does not qualify me as an expert, but it does enable me to examine some disciplines with an eye for for distortion of facts. If something can be proved or disproved, I have no reason to deny the truth. As of yet, the Darwin theory does not answer all questions about origin of species. Will it eventually be vindicated in all its premises? Maybe so, when all the questions are answered with scientific fact, I will then accept the result. I don't know if the quotes from Darwin Refuted

are fact or not. If they are not then some on this site may be able to refute them with science. Debate is frequently the path to truth, it's too bad the search frequently ends up in insults.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...