Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Creationism begins its discussion of life about 6000 year ago. Evolution begins its discussion, further back in time, with a different Adam called replicators. Neither begin at the true origin which are simple chemicals. The theory of evolution starts late, falling short of the logical zero point, biasing the analysis. It depends on a miracle, an alien invasion, or some random comet, to get this starting point; origin of faith.

    Evolution deals with the changes observed within life. Using the current definition of life, replicators are a reasonable place to start. However, the definition of life does not include water even though observations, for years, show life stops down to enzymes if the water is removed. The rebuttal is the argument of alternate life, which has not been shown to be possible in the lab; faith based rebuttal. The organics alone will not allow life to appear, yet the biased definition leaves that out. There are at least flaws in the foundation premises; evolution is built on a swamp using a prefab trailer.

    In Creation, they define their origin with Adam being their first human replicator who also appears without the requirement of logic or proof. Evolution does the same thing with its replicator Adam. The bottom line is any model that can start earlier than Adam or Replicator Adam is a better science model. Evolution is science, but is is made invalid by being built on flawed foundation premises; religious foundation.

    What is the logic for the formation of replicators? Do these appear like magic with the God of Chaos making this all possible? Or did an alien race, with the power of gods, plant the replicators? Let us ague foundation premises to show the flaws.

    I begin with water, which other areas of science can show was already on the earth. I don'y need the God of chaos for the faithful. This true origin is considered alien in the religion of evolution since it follows logically yet lacks faith in the replicator Adam.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    To Wellwisher
    Yes water is essential to life, as we know it, but so are dozens of other chemical compounds, for example NaCl - Your heart and nerves will not function without the Na+ ion. In fact a nerve impulse is a sudden, self progating influx of Na+ ions thru the axon memebrarane, that makes the interior go a few mV positive from its normal -70mV resting state.

    All life must have a membrane, separating it from the environment. If I were to focus on some critical start to life it certainly would not be water as that was very abundant - not critical at all. My focus would be on the much more rare, dipole molecules, (one end hydrophilic and other hydrophobic) which naturally float on water in self-assembling sheets - Waves can roll them into closed proto-life cells. How they selectively admit nutrients and reproduce others of their kind is not well known, but there were billions of these "proto-life" cells formed in the oceans. Once one of the billions could do the essential things of life (get energy and mater from the environment, growing and reproducing), is one plausible way life started. There are many others, but we have little information as to which did start life on it evolutionary journey.

    One of the other mechanisms does not use water - it uses a naturally forming atomically 2D surface, perhaps mica, as a "template" to organize / assemble the first proto-life cells with waves or just tumbling down the stream to strip-off and roll the 2D film into a boundary separating cell from the environment.

    Your focus on the very abundant water is not needed, but, again, yes water (and NaCl, plus dozen of other compounds) are essential for life as we know it.
    It is very unlikely that pure water (no salt or natural one end hydrophilic and other hydrophobic dipoles) could ever have started life. The salinity of your blood is essentially that of the oceans when life began - a little less now that rivers have been transporting salts into the ocean. BTW, eastimating that river salt flux and assuming the oceans were initially salt free, gave a reasonable estimate of how long Earth had liquid water at least 200 years ago, but I forget who did this.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    No faith is required in organic evolution.

    This is starting to bother me a little, and I'm beginning to see why James is so angry. Have you, or have you not, heard of the Miller-Urey study? I will post it here again. I wish, 'wellwisher', for you to read it. The experiment produced over 20 amino acids just from the basic elements sitting in a heated beaker in a week. A WEEK. Do you understand how incredible this result is over such a tiny fragment of time? We have built artificial viruses from scratch in lab. What more do you need than that? Life took a billion years to evolve, and you want the complete chain of all life in a hundred years of research, with sixty since the actual discovery of DNA.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

    Of course water is required, mind, wellwisher. It's a freaking solute carrier.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    NaCl works in the context of water. It will not work in the solid state. It needs liquid state physics to perform is function in life. The impact of Na+ is to create order within the water. The impact of K+ is to create disorder in water. The Na+ helps with H+ signals which are faster. These two ions are tailored to water, being on either side of its tertiary structural stability. The balance of sodium and potassium helps to define the equilibrium of the water. This defines how the organics will react.

    Dipole molecules with hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends form structures based on the potentials they create with the water continuum. If we replaced water with ethyl alcohol or ammonia, the solvent potentials change, which then changes how the dipoles will react. The structures will change in ways that are not as useful to the needs of life. The terms hydro means relative to water but not to other solvents.

    Water is the gold standard for many reasons. Another reason is water is the least reactive of the possible solvents; water is a terminal product of the combustion of all the other solvents; water is the last man standing. Being the base solvent, in terms of energy, it sets the highest potential with organics to assure change has to occur.

    If you had an ammonia based life (hypothetical), how do you prevent that life from eating its solvent, all the way to water? We can use ammonia as a fuel. Ammonia has innate energy value and therefore has less potential with organics; less potential for continued change.

    We burn alcohols for energy to CO2 and Water, because these are at the bottom of the energy hill, being very stable and setting the deepest foundation. Water is better than CO2 because it has hydrogen bonding and can mimic carbon with four secondary bonds that even form resonance structure referred to as cooperative hydrogen bonding.
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Yes, the contribution of water to the grand theory of organic evolution is as a bipolar solvent.

    Take nothing, by the way, of my use of the term 'bipolar'.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,141
    Geoff, I think we normally just say "polar", don't we?

    But yes indeed, Wellwisher seems to regard water with some sort of mystical significance where life is concerned, but all he's really saying is what everyone recognises, that it is a very powerful and versatile solvent.
     
  10. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You're trying to make Lewin out to be a greater authority than the leading experts in the field. I'm sorry, but your bullshit is just not going to fly.

    Again, only in your dramatic imagination are things like official retractions and legal action even remotely appropriate given the context in which the events under discussion unfolded.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  11. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I'm actually aware of that. We've all been down the hopeful monsters road with leopold before. But in addition to my comments being crafted to try to draw out his position on the matter, just about every remotely serious saltationist viewpoint still has evolution proceeding at a gradual pace when it comes to radical changes over time (birds evolving from dinosaurs for example, or indeed an Elephant evolving from a Prokaryote). I get the distinct impression that leopold still has an objection to any sort of gradual change no matter how comparatively abrupt it is as long as there remain a series of intermediary forms between two quite different creatures. And if transitional forms are rejected, all that's left is creationism.

    In any case I apologize for my more colloquial use of the term "gradualism" when it does indeed have a more specific definition in the context of evolutionary theory.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  12. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Wellwisher wont be happy until someone acknowledges the religious significance of water. In my opinion it has become clear over the years that what he's really driving at is a form of theistic evolution that has water, as a holy substance, elevated to the status of primary driving force behind biological function and evolution.
     
    GeoffP likes this.
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Seems that way.
     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I leave it up to preference.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The current traditions leave out the impact of water to the degree of its reality significance. I recognize studying water within life is harder to do than looking at the organics. You can look at DNA or add a chemical and see that happens. With water one is dealing with transient secondary and tertiary structures in real time. The data is harder to observe.

    Regardless, the proper way to look at water is, water and organics are partners. Life does not exist in water without the organics, while life does not exist in the organics without the water. All speculation about alternate solvents and alternate life is science fiction, at best. No scenario has been shown to be true in the lab. Those who believe in evolution are often fooled by claims of alternate solvents and life, as though proven.

    The problem I may have communicating the significance of water, is water is best addressed using physical chemistry; blend of physics and chemistry, while evolution is more empirical biology and chemistry. Empirical does not require an exact mechanism or even any proper energy balance. It will lump into averages using statistical analysis. Statistics are far more important to evolution and biology than it is to physical chemistry.

    I assume any attempt to develop a rational connection between water and life must seem like magic, since it does not try to lump with statistics as expected. Any solvent can be lumped. I always had a love/hate relationship with biology. I was attracted to the study of life, but I did not like the way it was taught. It was too much memory work and not enough basic premises to allowed inference and deductive analysis like in engineering. It was more by the book without room to think. To me is seemed closer to learning a language or history than learning subjects in engineering. Evolution appears to be benefit by not too much thinking.


    Previously, I showed that hydrogen bonding within water is a binary bond, that can switch between a polar and covalent state. There is a slight energy difference with each state Each state is nestled at the bottom of an energy well able to shift back and forth by overcoming a small activation energy barrier. Water is a binary switch that can be used to store information in a variety of ways. Picture computer memory bits that are not just an on-off switches, but the on-off positions each contain differences in at least four parameters; enthalpy, entropy, volume, pressure. This is a very flexible switching system.

    The organic nuts and bolts materials of life, such as protein, RNA and DNA, all contain hydrogen bonding. This addendum is due to their interaction with water during their evolution. These organic hydrogen bonds are also binary switches that can store information. In the case of DNA, we have the DNA double helix intertwined with a double helix of water that hydrogen bonds to the extra hydrogen bonding sites between base pairs. These water will also hydrogen bond to other water to form the helix. This arrangement allows two layers of information along the DNA axis; water and organic hydrogen bonding. This is how DNA can interact with the cell; common language with the aqueous continuum. It also allows the cell, via the water to talk to the DNA and target enzymes to exact spots on the DNA.

    The potential within water helps to shape the organics. If we add a protein, its hydrophobic core is hidden from the water and its surface becomes more hydrophilic. This minimizes the potential. What also happens is the protein forms an exact fold with probability=1.0. The water gets rid of the uncertainty. At the interface between the water and the protein the hydrogen bonding of the water reflects the interface potential; reflected information. While the exact fold of the protein makes this information very reliable.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Great; measure it and get back to me.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,244
    I think that scientists have, for far too long, ignored the role of air in their descriptions of rain clouds. It is a fact that no scientist explicitly recognises that rain clouds couldn't exist in the absence of air. It is actually the air between the water molecules that is the most important part of the cloud.

    When it rains, we ought really to concentrate on the upward motion of the air around the raindrops. The air flows upwards to take the place of the displaced water in the cloud. Scientists don't like to talk about this important motion of the air, and I think that this feature has been overlooked for far too long.

    The current traditions leave out the impact of air to the degree of its reality significance. I recognize studying air within clouds is harder to do than looking at the liquid. With air one is dealing with transient secondary and tertiary structures in real time. The data is harder to observe

    Regardless, the proper way to look at clouds is that water and air are partners. Clouds cannot exist without the air, while air does not exist between the water droplets if the droplets aren't there. All speculation about alternate forms of rain clouds is science fiction, at best. No scenario has been shown to be true in the lab. Those who believe in meteorology are often fooled by claims of alternate intermediaries of the water droplets, as though proven.

    I guess any attempt to develop a rational between air and rain clouds must seem like magic, since it does not make use of statistics. This may be why this is referred to as a religion. The entire field of meteorology appears to be benefit by not too much thinking, for some reason that I just don't really like.

    The potential within air helps to shape the clouds. At the interface between air and the water the hydrogen bonding of the water reflects the interface potential; reflected information.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,141
    Hahaha, very good James.
     
  19. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    You do realize, of course, that soil/dirt has both air and water in the spaces between the grains of the soil/dirt. One cannot obtain a complete picture of soil/dirt without measuring those parts too, which science seems loathe to do, just as science is loathe to talk about the air in the clouds.
     
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The weather over deserts, where we have primarily air, but very little water, lacks much variety in terms of weather, until water arrives. The air is analogous to the organics of life. Once you add water to the air, you will get clouds, rain, snow, dew, hurricanes, tornados, floods, nor' easters, high and low pressure, etc. Water is the straw that stirs the drink. The air is important too, but without the water all you get is bulk movement of air without much variety. Less water means less life.

    The reason comes back to the hydrogen bonding within water. The main gases of the atmosphere do not contain strong secondary bonding forces. They only use van der Waals, thereby having very low boiling and melting points. As such, these gases will remain gases and will not change phase to make things more interesting and more varied. Water can be a solid, liquid and gas, all in the same cloud; hail, rain and humidity. The strength of the hydrogen bonding also allows water to find other water; birds of a feather, so it can cluster and segregate as clouds.

    In life, liquid water also has several phases based on the binary switch. The covalent aspect of the switch is analogous to the solid state of ice in that it expands when it forms, jus like ice. The polar aspect of the switch contracts and has more fluidity; higher entropy just like when we melt ice into liquid water. This switching and pushing and pulling makes weather in the organics that allow variety and life.

    Water is not a one trick pony, but is used everywhere including the formation of stars. Water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe behind hydrogen gas. When ice is acted upon by gravity the pressure will cause the ice to melt. The result is a 10% decrease in volume in the center that propagates as the collapses accelerates; collapse hammer effect.
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If you look at the onset of cell cycles, the membrane potential lowers due to membrane lipid unsaturation. This lowering of membrane potential is implicit of more sodium cations inside the cell. The impact of more sodium cations in, is to create more order in the cellular water than water will create for itself. The potassium cations do the opposite and creates more disorder in water than water will create for itself.

    The higher sodium levels within the mother cells changes the equilibrium within the bulk cellular water, making the organics of the cell follow an equilibrium path of order so the cell becomes more regimented. The mother cell is no longer trying to maximize her flexible to a changing environment. Rather she getting linear in terms of a very specific goal; equilibrium effect.

    When the sodium cations are outside in higher concentration, this create order in the water outside the cell. This is analogous to an image of surface tension. This is very inviting to the organics from the external water, compared to the bulk water, since this water is more conducive to organic contact. This helps food materials precipitate on the membrane for transport. When this is switched the cell has to depend more in its internal reserves.

    Late in the cell cycle, the membrane potential begins to increase again. This again changes the equilibrium the other way, with the changes within the cellular water, now more in tune with a higher entropy equilibrium; potassium cations. This gradual shift in equilibrium is about being ready for external perturbations. It also is reflected in the equilibrium unpacking of the DNA.

    The switching, of membrane potential, both ways is a relatively slow process, each way. This is useful because at each step of the continuous process, equilibrium events are triggered in stages.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2015
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Wellwisher, he was taking the piss out of you.

    Your ideas are interesting in their way but very nebulous.
     
  23. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    ..denial of evolution...

    Sounds like combat strategy...but...I'm pretty certain it's a useless one...in a way by itself it would promote a different way of evolution....

    (or only allowing for the evolutionary forward steps that include masking....thus improving the ways in which masking is done to prevent
    detection by evolution sensing..which in every technological way would create an overhead that's way too big to sustain..)

    So..my opinion ?...you can't force evolution to halt...you can only gently nudge it one way or another..

    (nope I did not read everything said in here..just the title...which provoked this response..)
     

Share This Page