Denial of evolution IV

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Oct 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pahu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    What's the difference?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pahu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    Evolve into what?

    Evolutionary propaganda often understates the difficulty of a naturalistic origin of life. Production of traces of ‘building blocks’ is commonly equated with proving that they could have built up the required complicated molecules under natural conditions. The instability of ‘building blocks’ in non-biotic environments is usually glossed over.

    The RNA/DNA base cytosine is not produced in spark discharge experiments. The proposed prebiotic productions are chemically unrealistic because the alleged precursors are unlikely to be concentrated enough, and they would undergo side reactions with other organic compounds, or hydrolyse. Cytosine itself is too unstable to accumulate over alleged geological ‘deep time’, as its half life for deamination is 340 years at 25 °C.

    [From "Origin Of Life: Instability of Building Blocks" by Jonathan Sarfati}

    That paragraph is nothing more than speculation based on no evidence.

    More speculation. Where has any such thing been observed.

    And still more unsupported speculation.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MicroCubedX3 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37
    I do believe, it has been years since I did see that research, that a project was conducted where as amino acids would gather in a salty solution and subjected to electrical discharges. Supposedly creating single cell life forms. If you add the mutative properties of radiation from a star, I conclude that life can spontaneously develop give the right chemical slurry.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pahu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    The narrow definition of evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

    Scientists also refer to the broader definition of evolution as the gradual development of something, from a simple to a more complex form like the universe from a Big Bang, etc.
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Which is a process as real as the economies, society and civilization, which evolve, but then are economies and societies evolution? Of course not! Evolution is merely a process that many things undergo, Scientific abiogenesis may describe events that evolved into life but it is not evolution its self. In short if you have a problem with biological evolution you have to keep it focuses to that: the evolution of life from a simpler life. If you want to cover abiogenesis and thus anything that involves evolution you might as well claim the world is flat and that we have no history!
     
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    No it isn't. It has been postulated that evolution began within the kind of rock pores that exist around seafloor vents. This is a protected and relatively stable environment.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,654
    Slightly better computer viruses.

    Not at all. The building blocks are unstable - which is why it took so long to come up with even basic life.

    Scripps Research Institute in San Diego:

    ==================
    How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

    ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2009) — One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform biochemical questions about how life began.

    Now, a pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
    ===================

    20 years ago that was true. Since then we've discovered 565 planets, 54 of which may be in the habitable zone where liquid water can exist. And that's just out of the stars closest to us.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2011
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,587
    Is there a point here? Your title says science disproves evolution, and then you discuss abiogenesis, my point was simply that abiogenesis is not evolution.
     
  12. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Clues.

    There are places where evolution is still clearly on display:

    In the Chihuahuan Desert in northern Mexico, there are pools of sparkling blue water that are home to 70 species of plants and animals that are found no where else in the world, and may reveal clues to the forces that sparked the Cambrian transition.

    At the bottom of the ocean’s deepest trenches there are unexpected high number of sociable fish. Life exists beyond the limits thought.

    New Guinea, with much biodiversity, is a living laboratory for evolutionary biologists where one can observe adaptive mechanism first hand.

    The Canadian Arctic was where Tittaalik roseae was discovered, an intermediate step between fish and land-living animals.

    In the intensive care unit of a hospital, man’s artificial selection forces microbes to alter their genetic makeup in only a few days, due to the overwhelming pressure of antibiotics that kill off all but the hardiest microbial mutants. This ratchets up the normally glacial pace of evolution and has been called “Darwinism at its finest”. These hospital-acquired infections kill 90,000 people a year.
     
  13. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    The following is only a rough guess, and evolution and life may not even require it, but here it is:

    LIFE EXPLAINED

    It is, of course, that atoms and molecules make it up, through a casual nexus of physical-chemical reactions; however, this observation cannot be equated to an “explanation”, for it seems not to be plainly reductive, and so we must delve deeper, for there may very well be a background behind what the chemicals do. According to the quantum realm, “matter” is only composed of potentiality—it only becomes matter when it’s “real-ized” by interaction.

    In a stable configuration of matter, such as in the inanimate, all the quantum uncertainties are effectively statistically averaged out, this thus ever being deterministic; but in the case of the statically unstable but dynamically stable configurations, the “lively” features of the underlying quantum structure have a chance to surface to the macroscopic level; that is, to life, ad I wish I knew how.

    The electric dipole moment of biomolecules might be the ordering parameter for the corresponding macro-quantum system, and so this could result in a change in quality for that macro configuration. There is the particle and there is the wave—either one forced on us by our observations, being jointly known as the ‘wavicle’, all three states of which are probably truly not the actual reality.

    There are, strictly speaking, no objects that are identical with themselves over time—the temporal sequence remains open; nature is often no longer seen as clockwork, but only as a “possibility gestalt”, the world occurring anew each moment. The deeper reality from which the world arises, in each case, acts as a unity in the sense of an indivisible “potentiality”, which can realize itself in many possible ways, it not being a strict sum of the partial states.

    What remains unchanged over time are certain properties that find expression in the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, electrical charge, etc., these necessarily being closer to the basis of all. It appears to us, though, that the world consists of parts that have continued from “a moment ago”, and thus still retain their identity in time; yet, matter really only appears secondarily as a congealed potentiality, a congealed gestalt, as it were. Physical phenomena may not made of basic building blocks but are perhaps made of “elementary processors”, which are complex-valued field “operators” that depend on time and location. These generate certain overlappings of correlated multi-dimensional wave fields that are propagating through time, fields of possibility, whose intensity is a measure of the probability of an object-like realization, this intensity being very sensitive to the relative phase of the overlapping partial waves.

    There are no point masses then, but only smudged particles, such as we know of in the space-filling representations of the distribution of electrons in the shells of atoms—the ‘cloud’. There is a relationship structure that arises not only from the manifold and the complicated interactions of the imagined building blocks of matter, but also one that is substantially more inherent and holistic, again such as we see in quantum physics. So, there is form before substance, relationality before materiality. It’s hard to imagine pure relationships existing without a material substrate, but, consider electromagnetism: it fills space—without a material substrate, or consider a music CD—its singers and instruments encoded in a relationship structure. The material CD is only a carrier, of secondary importance, its information being primary, an analogy to particles and waves’ descriptions. Impressions of realizations are left in our 3D world by the gestalt that “lives” in the multi-dimensional spaces of quantum superpositional possibility.

    Quantum systems of many quantum states are not so much systems as they are holistically differentiated process structures. However, considering them as systems, they are complex, meaning here that such systems cannot be reduced to simpler systems without breaking connections; thus there can be no clear reductions, for, as in chaos theory, there are embedded instabilities—and if we disregard even the tiniest correlations then we may severely distort the result. We can no longer just analyze the parts but must try to use much more sophisticated statistical methods, these being more than the simple probability to which we are accustomed. Waves can reinforce, weaken, or even cancel out, this all being a kind of generation of partial disconnectedness by intermediate extinctions, such as in the way a biological organism forms from a single cell by successive cell divisions, which do not occur by parting, but by repeated formation of semi-separating cells walls; however, this is only a very rough analogy.

    Via metabolism, life forms have a sufficiently powerful energy pump, one that could conceivably generate states of thermal disequilibirium in molecular systems embedded in certain substrates that would excite certain low-frequency collective modes of vibration with great power, perhaps via mechanisms similar to Bose-Einstein condensation, the electric dipoles coming into play as an ordering parameter; however, this is not a conclusive, direct connection. Information appears only in the animate, and is furthermore exchanged, the meanings somehow combining to make sense in some nonreductive process—the relational reality of life happening at this semantical level of information exchange.

    Life is not mindless; it is inspired; it’s meanings cannot be discovered by observation, but only by participation. Life’s entities embrace one another: cell, organism, species, and biotope. A living creature is more like a poem, revealing further dimensions and expressing new properties at every level of organization: letter, word, sentence and [uni]verse.

    Somehow, perhaps, quantum states that continue on further in the quantum superposition have reached more efficiency and effectiveness, with all the paths being tried out, just as in the 95% efficient photosynthesis methods seen, and so that’s what collapses out of it, the more productive paths that last, one usually with the least amount of effort, too.

    Or not, if reductive.

    (This is not to say that this is magic, instant, and all powerful. It isn’t. It still
    takes much time.)
     
  14. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    I don't have anything against the consistent parts of the theory its the arrogant certainty about the unknown unrecorded history that gets to me because there are still many speculations going around under the veil of TOE.
     
  15. charles brough Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    When questions arise like this, it shows that science has questions and is working on them. Working on them and finding the answer is what we call progress. That is what science is, the process of answering questions. The more we learn, the more questions that arise. What is more, there is no reason this process should ever end. There are no perfect, total answerse about everything, not, in fact, about anything! Not even our theories are ever complete and "the total knowledge."

    If that is difficult to understand or accept, it is only because the individual has not grasped what science really is. "Truth" is an old religion word when used in the sense of human knowledge. Science seeks only the more accurate answers. When it finds the answer to your question (if not already), we will know why life could begin "even when it needed nitrogen which only it could produce" (have I got that straight?).

    brough
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2011
  16. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    Honestly the theory just doesn't seem to have any hard discipline as does physics, chemistry. It's like archaeology.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Like iceaura said, a basic knowledge of the Theory of Evolution.
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Aaah not the bullshit, evolution can even be reduce to mathematical constructs and it has real application from infectious disease control to artificial intelligence. It is a process fundamental to many fields of science now, and is no more abstract then photosynthesis or rain fall.
     
  19. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    Links please, and are you sure application for infectious diseases are not from biochemistry. Note the consistencies in the theory isn't what gets to me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2011
  20. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Wow we have a historical community around this topic. There has been continuous argument -er uh... discussion since I first logged into sciforums years ago. Aren't you guys tired? I'm sure if I read through this whole thread I would probably find few new developments, and maybe even learn something I never knew, but I've been tired of this discussion for a long time. I can't really grasp how anyone could not acknowledge the process of evolution.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,654
    Some religious sects require people to believe in creationism - thus they have a religious reason to not acknowledge it.
     
  22. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Not necessarily.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    If you can handle the mathematics of modern evolutionary theory, or even a couple of the subsidiary arenas (ecological modeling, epidemiology, etc), I'll listen to your opinions about the "hard discipline".

    My guess is you don't have much of a handle on the theory, even at a rudimentary level. For something allegedly soft and easy, a remarkable number of apparently intelligent and interested people have screwed it up in public. I think it's actually very difficult, despite the superficial simplicity of the basic statement - it falls into arenas of human thought (probability, algorithmic process, denial of the automatic cause and effect structure) famous for presenting paradox and frustrating difficulties to the neophyte.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page