Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I could say the same thing following a run down of your side of the argument, but I realize that would be an unfair tactic. These one word brush-offs seem to be your specialty though.
I doubt it.
You have no evidence to support your argument.
Keep trying. It's not a "brush-off", simply pointing out that despite your seeming certainty those answers were anything but.
Oh dear, such fallacious thinking. Eventually you'll have to trap out of your infinite regression, and then use some reasoning contrary to your original premise to do so, invalidating the whole argument.
peer reviewed evidence please.
you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such crap as fact in the science section of the forums.
What invalidates that currently is if you use the argument: Who made you?
Technically it was biological process between your mother and father, but they didn't exactly sit there with a draft board and draw up the schematics that you are made from. (As handy as that would have been)
Instead it was left to the roll of a dice, at least that's the simplified term to express "The planets were aligned, the mood was right, the chemistry was euphoric and the eventual result seeded you you."
Well put Stryder!
Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
WTF are you talking about? evidence of evolution? 2 words galapagos islands.
verifiable evidence of a god.. NOT 1 THING.. a long elaborate fairy tale with the word BIBLE on the cover is not evidence.
If you go back to the opening of "Denial of evolution I", I addressed this. You're looking at an adult human, and saying "well clearly this man wasn't *born* from another human, it's too big to fit inside someone else; obviously. He must have been created as he exists right now."
You're ignoring everything except for the *current* inheritance mechanism, thinking it must be the only inheritance mechanism.
RNA can, in certain situations, assemble spontaneously. It can reproduce spontaneously. It can act as an enzyme. In other words, it can fill the role of both DNA and proteins, and can come about in an aqueous environment without outside interaction once the constituent parts are available - and those parts can come about with a reducing atmosphere and energy.
tl;dr: you are correct that DNA + proteins reproduction/metabolism likely didn't pop into existence fully formed. Fortunately, we don't have to jump to "magic!" as the final answer quite yet.
It's because everyone on this website except a few poorly educated people like yourself are aware of the massive evidence that supports the theory. If you haven't reached the minimal level of knowledge to understand the arguments, there's nothing to be done with you except dismissal.
You folks just keep rehashing the same antiscientific arguments that have been refuted dozens of times here on SciForums. That's why we have a policy of only allowing one thread to accommodate these "discussions." We're being unnecessarily generous, but the Moderators and Admins have agreed that it's worth it to let our younger members see how the scientific method works in practice, especially in a hostile environment. Your assertions are peer-reviewed several times per year and always refuted. Your people are not scientists because your goal is to prove your beloved hypothesis rather than to discover the truth.
I mentioned the boundary condition of the cell, where cations are segregated to lower the entropy and increase the energy in the membrane. I also showed how the observed progressions, like RNA to DNA, follows logically from the boundary potentials. Yet the dogma of evolution is not about seeking the truth but defending obsolete traditions.
For example, the observation of only left-handed proteins in life is a logical consequence of the boundary condition since this reflects lower entropy or degrees of freedom and highest energy. Yet evolution, as is, gets to ignore that since it is not really about the truth. Many who fight evolution, fight against its corruption. It is run by mercenaries who are in it for the money and not the truth.
wellwisher, I can honestly say that I don't understand your points. I'm not sure if they are valid or not, and I simply don't get it. Perhaps I'm unable to grasp it, and the fault is purely my own.
For my failing, please explain how left-handed proteins invalidate evolution by natural selection?
While you are at it; who is in this great evolution conspiracy that is making all this supposed money?
The point I am making is the current theory of evolution is incomplete. I am not trying to refute evolution just pointing out limitations with the current theory. The boundary condition of the membrane gives evolution a logical direction. This goes against the dogma. The normal tactic is to label any challenge as creationism since logic is not available.
Do you really want to understand?
by your logic we need a new theory for how refrigerators work because they too also seem to "reverse entropy". Localized "reversal" of entropy is physically possible and common be it in life, rainfall, etc, as long as globally entropy is increasing.
Yes what are you saying and why?
Although there are several plausible ways life could have come from in-animate matter, my favorite is that in the oceans back when earth still had a reducing atmosphere (no free oxygen that green plants would make much later) There were lots of in-organic films floating on the surface. Films made of molecules which are polar (& hydrophilic) at one end and hydrophobic at the other - much like modern detergents are. They form films for same reasons detergents do - i.e. the polar ends attract each other and of course are all turned to the same side of the film.
These films are rolled into tubes of various sizes by the waves thousands of times each minute on the ocean surface. The tubes are broken into short segments and the ends naturally curl inward to close off an interior from the exterior - You can do this with detergents but once removed from the water surface a sphere (soap bubble) is the lowest energy state of the spontaneously (by agitation like in the waves) formed film unit with an interior separated from the exterior.
In the surface skins of these "proto cells" film units there would be locations with imperfections or "inclusions." Some of these cites would have selective transport properties. In the millions of years some of the closed off structure that formed by the millions every minute would infuse the interiors with other molecules that could help to define and stabilize the film unit's shape and eventually allow it grow, selectively taking in to the interior molecules, such as RNA etc. that could control its evolution and division into what we would call primitive cellular life.
What part of this, or something like it, "Goes against dogma." - To me it seem like a probabilistic NECESSITY.
At some point in time, some of the selected interior molecules could capture and store solar energy, but to get started in the reversal of entropy, only the energy of waves is required.
The membrane of the cell is induced into lower entropy because sodium and potassium cations are segregated across the membrane due to the expenditure of energy. This does not violate entropy since it is a localized condition that does not preclude the entropy of the universe increasing. It is not random but takes order and energy to occur.
The cell needs to constantly expend energy to maintain this contrary entropy situation, because it's induction goes in the opposite direction of the universe. The environment will try to add disorder to the membrane such as material input for internal transport. Because the boundary condition defines low entropy, even the transport of this entropy increase (food value) into the cell will evolve into a low entropy way; specific transport proteins. A higher entropy way would involve random mechanisms. weIr
If we had a simple cellular boundary condition, evolution would once again evolve a low entropy transport mechanism for the materials that are trying to increase the entropy of the membrane. It would do this since this would define material equilibrium with the boundary.
During a cell cycle, the membrane will unsaturated. Unsaturation will make the membrane more fluid and increase cation reversal. This means entropy will increase at the boundary because of the unsaturation. Because the boundary changes, the material equilibrium in the cell will also increase entropy. That is the nature of the cell cycle; lower energy and increase entropy.
The cell increases the entropy of stored food polymers and lowers energy via high metabolism. Structural proteins dissociate, large cell systems like the nuclear membrane and Golgi apparatus disperse into higher entropy,etc. Even highly packed genes along the DNA gain an additional degrees of freedom allowing these genes to become copied. This is also the time random mistakes occur on the DNA for traditional evolution.
The problem I can see for others is entropy is usually defined as being random resulting in waste. If you reverse entropy we get the opposite which is order and efficiency. If life started with only the boundary condition (cation pumps), the rest will fall into place since it defines an equilibrium.
You're overlooking the fine print in the Second Law that says "in the long run." After all, a steady, monotonic increase in entropy would be a predictable pattern and that, in itself, would violate entropy, right?
Local reversals of entropy are permitted, both spatially local and temporally local, and there is no limit on their magnitude. In fact the Big Bang may have been one--although the macrocosmologists here don't enthusiastically agree with me on that.
The most succinct definition of "life" I have ever seen, and one that will probably withstand the challenge of anything or anybody we encounter elsewhere in the universe is:A local reversal of entropy.
A cell cycle does just that. The process leads to two degrees of freedom where originally there was only one. To get to that state, entropy increase occurs everywhere, such as dissociating structures. The cell can do this again and again.
When I first did the entropy equilibrium analysis for the cell cycle, I worked under the assumption that the first cells did not have all the bells and whistles of modern cells. They needed to be able to accomplish the cell cycle in a simple way, that did not require much in the way of the modern bells and whistles. The best solution I found was an equilibrium analysis using the boundry potentials. When the membrane unsaturates, this increases the membrane's confgurational entropy. The boundary potential change impacts the internal equilibrium in a global way.
The milllion dollar question is, how is the energy and entropy state at the boundary conducted into the cell? Before answering that question, I would first like to look at the conduction of the boundary potentials, into the surrounding water outside the cell.
The cationic segregation concentrates sodium cations on the outside of the membrane. Sodium cations are what are called kosmotropic because they create order in water. Relative to water, this means better hydrogen bonding or lower entropy within the water at the membrane's exterior boundary.
The situation we have is the exterior boundary water, close to the membrane, at lower entropy than the bulk external water due to the sodium concentrating. We have a potential between the membrane and the bulk water at the level of entropy and energy. The bulk water is at higher energy and higher entropy. The boundary water is at lower entropy and lower energy due to the order in water. This dual potential can be lowered if dissolved organics in the bulk water were to diffuse out of the bulk water into the external membrane water.
Organics dissolved in water will increase the surface tension and energy within the water. This means dissolved organics will result in higher energy and higher entropy in water. If the bulk water can push this high energy and high entropy induction into the membrane, it can lower the potential that is being created by the membrane.
Once the boundary is set up, materials diffuse more easily toward the cell from the bulk water. This can quicken evolution.
How does the segregation of K+ and Na+ cause the cell membrane to exist in a state of lower entropy?
It is often defined as this, but this is a oversimplified and misleading definition. Entropy is disorder in a system, not waste. Localized order can spontaneously come from a disordered system with the application of energy, and without life:
It's not wasted, it's just disordered.
Agreed. Local decrease in disorder (inside the cell) though maintaining an overall increase in entropy in the system. This expenditure of energy is maintained through either photosynthesis, chemosynthesis, or consumption of food (which in turn came from photo- or chemo synthesis). The source of the energy increases in disorder at a higher rate than life reduces disorder, as the conversion to usable energy results in a certain amount of inefficiency and loss to heat.
The environment isn't 'try'ing to do anything, in that it does not have a goal or purpose. I do agree that it applies pressure to increase entropy via natural forces though. Why is the boundary condition the definition of low entropy, and I assume you're referring to the cell membrane? Why is this entropy increase being considered as transported, and why are you calling it 'food value'? Why will cellular membrane transport systems evolve into a low-entropy method?
How did we get here? I'm with you on the rough measure of disorder being lowered for the water itself via the addition of the sodium (though not inherently lowering entropy in general via this action).
But where is this 'high energy' coming from? Are you talking about the potential energy of the water outside the high sodium concentration? To do what, exactly?
This can also be resolved by the sodium diffusing into the general water column and away from the membrane.
This is really where you are losing me. Even if this gradient you describe is causing organic molecules to 'fall' towards the cell membrane at a rate faster than would be normal without the existence of life, how does that alter either rate of genomic change or external survival pressures such as predation - and in turn, hasten evolution?
Separate names with a comma.