YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THERMODYNAMICS. You've been 'hammering' on thermodynamics and you've had half a dozen posts pointing out your errors. Go and frigging read them. Pages 2 and 3. Go and read them.
Yes, I have read them, and responded to them. Go and read them.
Quote:
My qualifications are in English literature and performance and I write about African hunter gatherer cultures and paleolithic parietal art. So what?
So let me get this straight...you're basically an artist with a hobby and you're telling me, a biophysicist, that I don't understand thermodynamics?
I find it funny that Benzene, as educated as he claims to be, is using the non-sequitur "naturalist" which means "nudist" in almost all references.
I find it funny that Benzene as clever as he claims to be doesn't realise that it's not a question of whether it's A or B, chance or design, doesn't realise that it's A or designed following a literal interpretation of Genesis.
He can spout off everything till he knows till he's blue in the face. until even I'm convinced that the theory of evolution is not right, but the Question will still be "Prove that it happened in accordance with the literal interpretation of Genesis".
so tell me Mr Biophysicist, what is the biological mechanism that prevents information being added to the genome.
I can answer the question, and I dont have a qualification in anything.
MarcUK, this is the second time I've had to remind you of this. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you post:
(from page 3)
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
I didn't say there was a biological mechanism that prevented the addition of more genetic material.
Prokaryotes are usually very stingy with their genomic data, but they make up for that by dividing very quickly. (as well as picking up DNA from their surroundings)
Eukaryotes on the other hand, have pretty sophisticated DNA handling techniques, so they can tolerate a lot more excess material, which allows for very fine tuning of the control mechanisms of the actually transcribed material. (which recently was found to be probably less than 25,000 genes in humans, link)
That's not even the problem. Copying DNA is one thing, generating useful DNA from scratch is a completely different issue.
Quote:
Originally poste by tonton
I find it funny that Benzene, as educated as he claims to be, is using the non-sequitur "naturalist" which means "nudist" in almost all references
I do not use the term "evolutionists" because evolution means a change in genetic information over time.
I use the term "naturalist" in application to people who believe natural processes only.
In addition, I think you should take a look at this link and get a different dictionary.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
He can spout off everything till he knows till he's blue in the face. until even I'm convinced that the theory of evolution is not right, but the Question will still be "Prove that it happened in accordance with the literal interpretation of Genesis".
I'm not denying that there are two questions, as a matter of fact I've said that very thing oh, about five times in the course of this thread.
Currently however, because of the opening post in this thread, we seem to be concentrating on evolution and origins. Not whether or not the bible is true. (Even though I have proffered explanations pertaining to questions about the bible).
So let me get this straight...you're basically an artist with a hobby and you're telling me, a biophysicist, that I don't understand thermodynamics?
it is sad that he does have a better understanding of thermodynamics than an honest to god "biophysicist". You see, as a biophysicist, I can as well as anyone here who has had an interest in thermodynamics tell you you are completely and totally wrong.
I guess the best explanation is the failure that is the american education system...
it is sad that he does have a better understanding of thermodynamics than an honest to god "biophysicist". You see, as a biophysicist, I can as well as anyone here who has had an interest in thermodynamics tell you you are completely and totally wrong.
I guess the best explanation is the failure that is the american education system...
Really. Where did you go to school?
And even if you are a biochemist, give one example of where I've been wrong in my earlier statements.
If you think my statements about thermodynamics of the cell are incorrect then listen to what Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (3rd edition) has to say (and this is all within the first 20 pages):
"In any physical or chemical change, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant, although the form of the energy may change." (page 8 )
"Living cells are chemical engines that function at constant temperature." (page 8 )
(emphasis mine)
"Living organisms are interdependent, exchanging energy and matter via the environment." (page 9)
"The amount of energy actually avalible to do work, called the free energy (delta G) will always be somewhat less than the theoretical amount of energy released, because some energy is dissipated as [heat]..." (page 9)
"Chemical reactions can also be coupled so that an energy-releasing reaction drives an energy-requiring one." (page 9, emphasis mine)
Now, even for cellular reactions that are endergonic, many undergo conversion at such a low rate as to be impossible for the supporting of life without enzymes (like the breakdown of glucose). (and the formation of macromolecules like proteins and DNA is hardly endergonic)
As a matter of fact, Lehninger even titles a subsection of the first chapter "Biological information transfer". (page 13).
"A living cell is a self-contained, self-assembling, self-adjusting, self-perpetuating constant-temperature system of molecules that extracts free energy and raw materias from within it's environment." (page 18 )
Point: you have to have a mechanism in place to couple the reactions that are responsible for life. Starting life from basic components has a much too large overhead to be even remotely possible. You can't just throw energy into a reaction and expect anything without the proper mechanism in place already.
If you really are a biochemist (or anybody that's even had a course in chemistry), you will recognize these statements, and acknowledge that they are true. Show me where someone has shown a protein to autoassemble. (And the miller-urey experiment made L & R amino acids, not proteins, so don't give me that).
Elihu (and now benzene isn't simply a carcinogen, he is an honest to goodness human),
Sorry about finding background info (granted not very hard) because I often approach these situations with reservation unless someone has proven trust worthy. You seem to be trusting of all of us with your more personal information, so the least I can do is to tell you that I am a graduate student in Biochemistry/Biophysics at UPENN. Yes, everything you list is more or less true, I would take issues with the vocabulary used however.
I can however state that it is a profound fault of scientists to write things off as impossible because they cannot conceive of it. This goes for scientist who say God cannot exist because it isn't possible. I say god does not exist because it/she/he/they are not necessary, immortal soul be damned (though really, my background is American Conservative Judaism, and we have no place for heaven or hell or even a soul -- it makes the meaning of good works a little more personal, if you know what I mean)...
The cell has never been claimed to have come about in one step. What is even more convincing of this is that all of the genetic family trees of enzymes (as you know functional and not simply structural proteins) point to a common ancestor before which we know nothing. Now -- if you want to claim that God created this ancestral bacteria-like mono-cellular entity from which all life has emerged, I can't provide one iota of evidence that would contradict that since well there isn't any -- I can however point out that this would make everything in the Judeo-Christian genesis a lie. Also of note is that almost none of our enzymes are optimized. These things compound in my mind to suggest that we are still very much in the process of evolving, after all, we certainly aren't perfect if we are in God's image.
One thought experiment i need you to do for me, Elihu: An inorganic crystal capable of adding phosphates to the known to occur spontaneously nucleotides. Lets say a pool of this broth sits in some complex equlibrium for a long time -- it is quite probable that a large number of poly nucleotides of different lengths will form with time. Some of these may have the property that "pathogenic DNA" has -- that is it is quite likely that once they get long enough the reaction which extends the length of the nucleotide chain may be autocatalyzed by approximation (I will ask you to recall that most catalysis involves simply getting the reactants in close proximity, that is approximating the ideal reaction collision geometry). This means that after a certain length the chain will eventually fold onto itself until it can add no more charged nucleotides. Some fraction of these will be unfolded at least partially at almost all reasonable temperatures. These unfolded species would allow for the binding of smaller fragments that have very similar if not completely identical sequence identity -- once again aiding catalysis of the extension reaction by approximation. I am not claiming this occurs quickly -- but it could happen. We can predict that over time we would find a build up of the best sequences of nucleotides -- those that have less geometric restrictions on extension, and perhaps even some that do more than simply catalyze by approximation. These sequences of nucleotides may not constitute a formal definition of life, but they catalyze their own creation which is as near to life as i think a chemical system can get.
What does this need from the Universe? An inorganic crystal capable of catalyzing the charging reaction, and the existence of nucleotides.
What I am trying to suggest is that everything that we do as life forms, something inorganic does out there -- in fact there are reactions that inorganic complexes do that life doesn't due -- most likely because of the rarity of metals required.
One last comment: The "pathogenic DNA" that I discussed above does exist -- it tends to need the existence of cellular machinery for its replication to be competitive with the current lifeforms on earth -- but in a situation in which there is nothing but it, these reactions can take decades and there would still be a significant chance that it would survive to the next coupling reaction. Also of note is that evidently a great deal of the reactions that us lifeforms do are very close to spontaneous -- that is there is very rarely a large thermodynamic barrier to any one reaction.
Elihu (and now benzene isn't simply a carcinogen, he is an honest to goodness human),
Sorry about finding background info (granted not very hard) because I often approach these situations with reservation unless someone has proven trust worthy. You seem to be trusting of all of us with your more personal information, so the least I can do is to tell you that I am a graduate student in Biochemistry/Biophysics at UPENN. Yes, everything you list is more or less true, I would take issues with the vocabulary used however.
Hey, I have nothing to hide. If you had asked me my name to find out my credentials (I think I even linked to my homepage in my profile) I would have given it to you.
I'm actually very glad to be talking to a fellow (formal) scientist. We at least have same foundation of common background on which to talk.
Quote:
I can however state that it is a profound fault of scientists to write things off as impossible because they cannot conceive of it. This goes for scientist who say God cannot exist because it isn't possible. I say god does not exist because it/she/he/they are not necessary, immortal soul be damned (though really, my background is American Conservative Judaism, and we have no place for heaven or hell or even a soul -- it makes the meaning of good works a little more personal, if you know what I mean)...
Although the imagination does play a large part in science (i.e. the generation of an hypotheses), they must be backed up with solid fact. In that regard, it seems that the design of the cell is a de facto standard for design.
Quote:
The cell has never been claimed to have come about in one step.
This is true. However, even with the thought experiment you postulate below, the probabilities of even a single cell forming are not even remotely possible. Here's the reason why:
1) Need a localized high concentration of nucleotides/amino acid
2) Need an autocatalyzing reaction (ok, your crystal is a hypotheses of that)
3) Need to have that autocatalyzing reaction work approximately 200 times to make a minimal competent complement of cellular machinery (and 200 is a very generous number, as you would agree)
4) Need a lipid bilayer
5) Need somethin in the way of a reverse-reverse transcriptase to turn the protein into RNA.
Even if you subscribe to the "RNA world" hypotheses, all of the same problems apply.
Quote:
What is even more convincing of this is that all of the genetic family trees of enzymes (as you know functional and not simply structural proteins) point to a common ancestor before which we know nothing.
Actually, on of the P.I.s I worked with had some interesting research in which large "superfamilies" of proteins were classified, but we never observed them converging across the board. I've heard the general statements, but there is always a large gap between analogous proteins in different families. Of course, this could be explained by an extensive proteome history that we're not aware of (but then again, that's making the problem much more complex).
If I was designing proteins, I wouldn't reinvent the wheel for each one, which is probably why the eukaryotic ribosome looks (on the macroscopic scale) quite similar to the prokaryotic version. I don't think God would do it much different either.
Quote:
Now -- if you want to claim that God created this ancestral bacteria-like mono-cellular entity from which all life has emerged, I can't provide one iota of evidence that would contradict that since well there isn't any -- I can however point out that this would make everything in the Judeo-Christian genesis a lie.
If you have to have a God at all (and one as intellegent as I think he is), why would he make just a single celled organism and stop there? It doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
Also of note is that almost none of our enzymes are optimized. These things compound in my mind to suggest that we are still very much in the process of evolving, after all, we certainly aren't perfect if we are in God's image.
I'm guessing that you mean our proteins haven't all reached turnover perfection. In many cases, the cell would want unoptimized enzymes, so as to provide unfinished intermediates for other processes. Also, remember what I said about humans having been accumulating genetic defects for a long time. As a matter of fact, the bible talks about early humans with very long lifespans.
Quote:
One thought experiment i need you to do for me, Elihu: An inorganic crystal capable of adding phosphates to the known to occur spontaneously nucleotides. Lets say a pool of this broth sits in some complex equlibrium for a long time -- it is quite probable that a large number of poly nucleotides of different lengths will form with time. Some of these may have the property that "pathogenic DNA" has -- that is it is quite likely that once they get long enough the reaction which extends the length of the nucleotide chain may be autocatalyzed by approximation (I will ask you to recall that most catalysis involves simply getting the reactants in close proximity, that is approximating the ideal reaction collision geometry). This means that after a certain length the chain will eventually fold onto itself until it can add no more charged nucleotides. Some fraction of these will be unfolded at least partially at almost all reasonable temperatures. These unfolded species would allow for the binding of smaller fragments that have very similar if not completely identical sequence identity -- once again aiding catalysis of the extension reaction by approximation. I am not claiming this occurs quickly -- but it could happen. We can predict that over time we would find a build up of the best sequences of nucleotides -- those that have less geometric restrictions on extension, and perhaps even some that do more than simply catalyze by approximation. These sequences of nucleotides may not constitute a formal definition of life, but they catalyze their own creation which is as near to life as i think a chemical system can get.
I have heard of this before, but I believe that they were using the surface of clay particles, not an inorganic crystal. Also, it (as you would admit) does rely on a lot of handwaving (as well as some of the problems I've posted above). A variant of this theory was postulated in the book I mentioned earlier, "Biochemical Predistination", that some biological molecules were more "fit" than others. This has never been observed, however.
But ok. Let's say that you have made an autocatalyzing DNA/RNA molecule. We are no closer to life than we would be on mars by jumping toward it. We still need an almost endless supply of nucleotides present (for which a mechanism has not been explained), and we need a transcription machine to get to proteins. Too many holes, and they present themselves much too quickly.
Quote:
What does this need from the Universe? An inorganic crystal capable of catalyzing the charging reaction, and the existence of nucleotides.
See some of my points above. Clay you have a lot of, but a mechanism to generate nucleotides has not. (even miller's experiment hardly made "a lot" of much simpler amino acids)
Quote:
What I am trying to suggest is that everything that we do as life forms, something inorganic does out there -- in fact there are reactions that inorganic complexes do that life doesn't due -- most likely because of the rarity of metals required.
Wait a second. You're telling me there's a crystal that specifically adds a phosphate to the first carbon of fructose?
It's starting to sound like you're advocating something like the "andromeda strain"
Quote:
One last comment: The "pathogenic DNA" that I discussed above does exist -- it tends to need the existence of cellular machinery for its replication to be competitive with the current lifeforms on earth -- but in a situation in which there is nothing but it, these reactions can take decades and there would still be a significant chance that it would survive to the next coupling reaction. Also of note is that evidently a great deal of the reactions that us lifeforms do are very close to spontaneous -- that is there is very rarely a large thermodynamic barrier to any one reaction.
You have a problem though, when you're talking about biomolecules, you hardly have even days for them to live in solution (especially when they're not in laboratory conditions), let alone the decades or thousands/millions of years for them to find any kind of propogating reaction mechanism.
And finally, there are many reactions necessary for life that have large thermodynamic barriers. Enzymes are what allow organisms to lower that activation energy, or to break the problem up into smaller chunks.
Also, be specific about where I'm wrong. Statements like "I can as well as anyone here who has had an interest in thermodynamics tell you you are completely and totally wrong." are completely misleading. Now that I know you are a fellow scientist, I'm going to expect more.
MarcUK, this is the second time I've had to remind you of this. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you post:
(from page 3)
That's not even the problem. Copying DNA is one thing, generating useful DNA from scratch is a completely different issue.
sorry, missed it the first time.
Thanks! An admission that 'information' can increase, and therefore an admission that Macroevolution is possible. An admission that the theory of evolution is correct, regardless of whatever started the process off - remember, it only had to happen by chance one time in the entire universe for us to be talking about it.
I rest my case, the theory of Evolution is Correct, as confirmed by the smartest Creationist i've ever had the pleasure of talking too!. Until I see evidence that the earth is 10000 years old, there is no reason to believe that it happened according to Genesis, and every reason to accept that I am here because I evolved.
So let me get this straight...you're basically an artist with a hobby and you're telling me, a biophysicist, that I don't understand thermodynamics?
I'm making a serious, grown-up contribution to paleoanthropological research and I make a living doing it.
As far as I can tell, your only contribution to society is innovation in the field of being a patronising dickhead. Extremely galling.
Incidentally, the dinosaur bone remains a fossil (not, as you tried to have us believe, 'an unfossilised t-rex bone') and you still haven't offered a serious explanation for the sealing of the Chauvet caves that accords with a young earth.
Incidentally, I've just found a lot of material on that bone and I'm going to be reading it.
Please don't patronise me anymore. I will have to tell you to fuck off.
Thanks! An admission that 'information' can increase, and therefore an admission that Macroevolution is possible. An admission that the theory of evolution is correct, regardless of whatever started the process off - remember, it only had to happen by chance one time in the entire universe for us to be talking about it.
Photocopying a single piece of paper a thousand times "makes" more information, but does not result in any new information. Macro evolution requires reams of new material, not recycled old genes.
Also for macroevolution to be true, it didn't have to happen only once, it had to happen several billion times. (for each and every new gene that ever existed)
Quote:
I rest my case, the theory of Evolution is Correct, as confirmed by the smartest Creationist i've ever had the pleasure of talking too!. Until I see evidence that the earth is 10000 years old, there is no reason to believe that it happened according to Genesis, and every reason to accept that I am here because I evolved.
byebye
Sorry, you haven't gotten off that easily.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
'm making a serious, grown-up contribution to paleoanthropological research and I make a living doing it.
As far as I can tell, your only contribution to society is innovation in the field of being a patronising dickhead. Extremely galling.
An patronising (and insistent!) dickhead with a lot of tough questions, and even tougher answers.
Quote:
Incidentally, the dinosaur bone remains a fossil (not, as you tried to have us believe, 'an unfossilised t-rex bone') and you still haven't offered a serious explanation for the sealing of the Chauvet caves that accords with a young earth.
And you seem to be intentionally ignoring what I said, and about the reason we were even talking about the bone in the first place.
Quote:
Please don't patronise me anymore. I will have to tell you to fuck off.
How mature of you. You seem to be getting a little shrill these days.
You know, I've been asked a lot of questions in this thread, and really haven't posted my own set. Here's a few for you naturalists out there to cut your teeth on:
1 ) Explain how human and dinosaur tracks are in the same layer of fossilized mud. The link to the find(s) in question is present earlier in the thread.
2 ) Explain how something a complex as a cell can come from chance.
3 ) Explain why we haven't found intellegent life yet (or visa versa), if evolution is so supposedly easy.
4 ) Explain why we've never observed new genetic information being made.
5 ) Explain why panspermia is a scientific theory.
6 ) Explain why it is that degenerative genetic mutations are increasing, and why we're not getting more "fit" as a race.
7 ) Explain why the church gets such a bad rap for the crusades, and how stalin's naturalistic mess was ignored.
8 ) Explain why the term "billions" of years has become the alchemists stone of the 20th century?
9 ) Explain why you can recognize a watch as being designed, but not phosphofructokinase?
10) Explain why Hassan i Sabbah is getting more and more progressively loud.
Oh, and somebody please ask me why the rods and cones in your eyes are installed backward! (Because Dawkins thought that implied an incomptent creator)
I'll post the intro here for everyone else to read:
"Traditionally, there was little hope that biomolecules might be recovered from bone more than a few thousand years old. However, 20_years ago, partial amino acid sequences were identified from the shells of mollusks 80 million years old (33). Gurley et al. (34) followed with a report of amino acids in the bony tissues of the Late Jurassic (150 million years ago) sauropod dinosaur, Seismosaurus, and more recently the small and highly acidic bone protein, osteocalcin, has been recognized immunologically in extracts of dinosaurian bone (35). Stable isotope studies (36), including those done on the specimen used in the following study (37), indicate that at least some of these molecules are endogenous to the fossils, rather than arising from younger exogenous contaminants. These results suggest that significant protein remnants may exist in fossil bone. In light of the above studies, it was decided to examine nonpermineralized dinosaur bone for biomolecular degradation products, including hemoglobin."
Very interesting. If you remember, the whole point of this topic was to state that your previous statement about the ability to date the fossilization process was trash. This paper goes to prove my point, right from the opening statement. Fact of the matter is, unless you know the conditions in which the bone was first situated, you cannot make anything better than a guess at how long it's been there. A perfect example: link.
No. Not at all.
The whole point of 'this topic' was to call you out for claiming that an unfossilised dinosaur bone had been discovered as proof for your young earth nonsense when in fact the bone was a fossil. It wanted to assert that you were repeating 'a lie' you had been fed.
You're very proud that this first paragraph 'proves your point', but for the life of me I can't see what point it proves other than that the bone was a fossil (because it is a fossil, so that's a fact we can be certain of) and that the people who were extracting unperimineralised proteins from it believed it be very ancient indeed.
So. The 'problem' of dating fossils.
In the fossil record we see (bullet point for the hard of thinking):
sequential transistions from one class of organism to another
simpler life forms early in the geological column, larger and more anatomically complex forms appearing later
like, vertabrates first, simple vertebrates next, then jawed fishes, then amphibiansm then reptiles, then birds, then mammals. Say.
extinct species and extinct flora appearing and disappearing together
And yet, in a single flood, over forty days, dozens of sedimentary layers were allowed to accumulate sorting animals by complexity. OK. Miracle water? You bet.
And extinct flora is found in the same sedimentary layers as animal fossils. In the times of Noah's flood, apparently, vegetation didn't float. No, it went the same sorting-by-age-and-complexity route as the herbivores that ate it while Noah floated on top waving goodbye to the drowning velociraptors and unicorns.
And as soon as you find hominid artifacts or fossils in the same sedimentary layers as dinosaurs, do let me know.
And there is still no evidence for flood water in Lascaux, Chauvet, Alta Mira, or Storm Pass. Beautiful, ancient paintings.
And etc and etc.
If you would like to discuss how the Flood sorted creatures as neatly as it did I would be absolutely delighted. I can't wait to hear your explanation of how the oak trees made a run for the high ground along with the willows and the sabre-toothed tigers.
I'll keep my radiometric dating and estimates of geological processes, thanks. Even if the dating's imperfect it's impossible for it to be out as many orders of magnitude as it would have to be for the planet to be as young as you claim it is.
You believe that one single flood arranged the fossil record with complex fossils overlying simple fossils, distributed ordered layers of incongruous sedimentary material and simulated successive ice ages.
You asking me to believe that, although the speed of light is constant and the universe is enormous and ancient, this planet is the youngest thing in it (unless God sped up the speed of light for a few thousand years for reasons best known to himself). Cosmology tells us the universe is ancient. Geology tells us that continents move across the crust, they're still doing it, they've been doing it for billions of years. Genetics accords, telling us how species are related. Mitochondrial DNA decay rates (something I do actually know something about), which are predictable, can even be used to give us an indication of ancient human migrations and the age of our species.
And you are accusing me of wanting the facts to fit my thesis?
1 ) Explain how human and dinosaur tracks are in the same layer of fossilized mud. The link to the find(s) in question is present earlier in the thread.
The short answer is 'they aren't.' And the long answer is 'they are not'. Ba-dum-bum. The Paluxy River 'man tracks' appear to be eroded dinosaur footprints. They bear the prints of dinosaur metatarsals and whatnot, apparently. Some of them are carved. It seems that even creationists have given up on these tracks.
Explain how something a complex as a cell can come from chance.[/quote
Read some Dawkins. I can't believe someone as clued up on this young earth nonsense as you hasn't read up the other side.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why we haven't found intellegent life yet (or visa versa), if evolution is so supposedly easy.
The universe is very big, benzene. It's really, really big. Really big. And I don't remember anyone saying it was 'easy'. Merely that it's possible and it's clearly happened here.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
[BExplain why we've never observed new genetic information being made.[/b]
Er, we do. We have. We observe it all the time. Is this a trick question?
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why it is that degenerative genetic mutations are increasing, and why we're not getting more "fit" as a race.
This is an interesting question but it's predicated on an outdated understanding of evolutionary theory. 'Survival of the fittest' isn't a defining component of current evolutionary thinking at all. It's an interesting question because it's been posited that as a species we've 'beaten our genes' through our success at adapting to environments, and there might be some truth to that.
We're a young species, less than a million years old. Nonetheless, different populations are certainly magnificently adapted to their particular environments, which is why northern Europeans are fair (vitamin D synthesis baby), eastern Africans have a natural resistance to malaria, many desert people have a fold of skin in their upper eyelids, indigenous Australians don't ever get melanomas, stuff like that.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why the church gets such a bad rap for the crusades, and how stalin's naturalistic mess was ignored.
OK. And who, exactly, is 'ignoring' what Stalin did? And why are you making this curious comparison? And why is what Stalin did 'naturalistic'? Man, change your terms. Stalin's rule was bad and awful. The Crusades were a mistake. People do fucked up things in the name of good ideals. Welcome to the human race, we ain't all that nice.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why the term "billions" of years has become the alchemists stone of the 20th century?
When did you stop beating your wife. Billions of years is an accurate number according to all the available evidence. That's why. Why is 10,000 years the alchemist's stone of young earthers?
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why you can recognize a watch as being designed, but not phosphofructokinase?
I don't know what phosphofruckinase is. Why do I have nipples and an appendix?
2 ) Explain how something a complex as a cell can come from chance.
You say the probabilities are too small (but non zero), I say the universe is big (and old) enought to compensate. The Theory of Evolution does not provide an explanation for the appearance of life.
Quote:
Explain why we haven't found intellegent life yet (or visa versa), if evolution is so supposedly easy.
Again, the universe is big and we have no idea how many instances of intelligent life there are in it (I'd guess more than none ). On a more grim note, it appears that the level of technology required to be visible to other civilisations light years distant is only slightly less than that needed to wipe out your own.
1) Need a localized high concentration of nucleotides/amino acid
2) Need an autocatalyzing reaction (ok, your crystal is a hypotheses of that)
3) Need to have that autocatalyzing reaction work approximately 200 times to make a minimal competent complement of cellular machinery (and 200 is a very generous number, as you would agree)
4) Need a lipid bilayer
5) Need somethin in the way of a reverse-reverse transcriptase to turn the protein into RNA.
1) We have detected the (presumably IR) spectral signatures of both nucleotides and amino acids in distant nebulae. They arise spontaneously in space. High concentrations aren't necessary unless you want this to be done on a laboratory time scale -- and I am trying very hard to argue that we have bucket loads of time so that really isn't an issue.
2) Autocatalyzing reactions are only necessary after the first basic components have been created -- in my example, the activated nucleotides. But autocatalyzing reactions are necessarily the ones that would have a reduced kinetic barrier in a system with no other catalysis, that is the products of the reactions that are autocatalyzed would build up much more rapidly than those that aren't autocatalyzed.
3) I have again never argued that all the components for life needed to be in the first reaction vessels, if you will. I think we can both agree that there are selection pressures on reactions which are catalyzed well, that don't build up side products that damage the catalyst or kill the substrates, and even so far as catalytic reactions whose products protect the reaction conditions.
4) Lipid bilayers are quite obviously one of the most recently evolved traits of cellular life -- think of the major thing that really separates physiologically the three forms of cellular life (prokaryotes, archea, and eukaryotes). It is their membranes, how many, how diverse, and what linkages are formed between the phosphorylated glycerol and the alkyl chain. But what is clear is that there was a lot of glycerol and phosphate in the initial cesspool of life. As far as these lipid bilayers being generated by catalyst -- well they are now, and there is no functional reason to believe that there creation couldn't be catalyzed by nucleotide based catalytic mechanisms (although, given the timing of the creation of the membranes in the branches of life the machinery for peptide synthesis may well have existed. Also, as we both know, lipids and their related precursor molecules will form bilayers spontaneously. All it takes is a pressure to develop a membrane around the ever more complicating "machinery" -- and we know why we need membranes, it creates the possibility of generating energy from potential gradients across the membrane as well as providing a means to separate the growing list of reactions preformed by our biomolecules from undesirable side products (the second probably came as a reason before the first). Also, if there was as much glycerol as i think there was in the cesspool, these bilayers wouldn't be as selective as ours are today -- and there is no reason to think that they would need to be.
5) It is an insurmountable problem to think of this as having arisen from peptides and somehow -- mysteriously -- got back translated to RNA or DNA. However, I will not say that it is impossible -- a system that accidently creates the biomolecules that are keeping it around has a better chance of surviving than those that don't -- hence back translation by being able to produce more catalysts. I do actually subscribe to the simpler RNA world hypothesis since we have a great deal of evidence that these things can be catalytic -- it also reduces the complexity of the initial steps, involving less inorganic compounds and more stuff we know works.
Quote:
If I was designing proteins, I wouldn't reinvent the wheel for each one, which is probably why the eukaryotic ribosome looks (on the macroscopic scale) quite similar to the prokaryotic version. I don't think God would do it much different either.
And if I were nature, I wouldn't mess with things that work. However, as a person who does de novo protein design, I must say, at this point we are reinventing the wheel with each iteration. There are rules we garnered from nature/geometry, but really each design isn't related to the previous designs as much as we find in nature. Perhaps we are going about this stupidly, but the ability to make leaps from one protein design to another is a trait of human intelligence...
Quote:
If you have to have a God at all (and one as intellegent as I think he is), why would he make just a single celled organism and stop there? It doesn't make any sense.
Well, there is growing evidence that that is all God needed to have done -- after you have a single celled organism containing all of the mechanisms for the diversification of life, natural history and random chance tells the rest of the story. If I were God, I would stop there, because I am a scientist and not an engineer. If I was an engineer, I wouldn't want things to change from my initial set up. So is your God a scientist or an engineer?
Quote:
I'm guessing that you mean our proteins haven't all reached turnover perfection. In many cases, the cell would want unoptimized enzymes, so as to provide unfinished intermediates for other processes. Also, remember what I said about humans having been accumulating genetic defects for a long time. As a matter of fact, the bible talks about early humans with very long lifespans.
The bible wasn't written when these people were "alive." From everything we can tell, people living before the spread of agriculture probably did live longer because their particular nutrient requirements were better suited to hunting and foraging. We have all the genetic evidence in the world to suggest that unless something is seriously off the decrease in telomere length of any and all humans provides a reasonable maximum life span. I believe that this is significantly shorter than many of the people's ages in the old testament.
Quote:
But ok. Let's say that you have made an autocatalyzing DNA/RNA molecule. We are no closer to life than we would be on mars by jumping toward it. We still need an almost endless supply of nucleotides present (for which a mechanism has not been explained), and we need a transcription machine to get to proteins. Too many holes, and they present themselves much too quickly.
Actually you don't need an endless supply, you need a degredation reaction that is much slower than the polymerization reaction. You do need enough to get to the point that the system can make them itself -- acetate, ammonia, CO2, glycerol, water and phosphate. There exist several syntheses to making nucleotides, pick one, it can occur in nature. Again, if we take the view that proteins are where life started, we get nowhere fast (and again, I am not saying however that this couldn't be the case).
Quote:
You have a problem though, when you're talking about biomolecules, you hardly have even days for them to live in solution (especially when they're not in laboratory conditions), let alone the decades or thousands/millions of years for them to find any kind of propogating reaction mechanism.
Actually that isn't true. In truly sterile conditions (which let me tell you, young earth was), biomolecules (excepting largely complex proteins which don't unfold reversibly) are perfectly stable at almost all temperatures an aqueous solution can have. Most instability is due to irreversible unfolding of protein, and/or nucleases or proteases which now (due to the profundity of life) coat the planet.
Quote:
And finally, there are many reactions necessary for life that have large thermodynamic barriers. Enzymes are what allow organisms to lower that activation energy, or to break the problem up into smaller chunks.
No. There exist kinetic barriers to reactions in nature. A thermodynamic barrier is one in which the product is so high in energy compared to the starting materials that equilibrium lies far to the starting materials. Meaning the reaction would be nearly impossible unless the product was being consumed. Kinetic barriers are overcome by time. Thermodynamic barriers are overcome by chemistry.
Quote:
Also, be specific about where I'm wrong. Statements like "I can as well as anyone here who has had an interest in thermodynamics tell you you are completely and totally wrong." are completely misleading. Now that I know you are a fellow scientist, I'm going to expect more. [/B]
[B]Photocopying a single piece of paper a thousand times "makes" more information, but does not result in any new information.[b]
I've already posted 2 links of evidence of increasing information which do not fit your photocopier analogy. If this doesn't count, be sure to tell us what your definition of the non-scientific term "information" so we can laugh our asses off.
Quote:
Macro evolution requires reams of new material, not recycled old genes.
Also for macroevolution to be true, it didn't have to happen only once, it had to happen several billion times. (for each and every new gene that ever existed)
Absolute fucking proof that you do not know what the theory of evolution is, or you are deliberately lying. Im beginning to think that your qualifications are nothing but lies to, and that you are nothing more than a very well read creationist whose head if full of the bullshit of the books you read. - "for each and every new gene that ever existed = macroevolution?" AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA AHAHAH HA - TWAT
Quote:
Sorry, you haven't gotten off that easily.
I dont need to. I've just been given proof that the theory of evolution is correct, by a lying creationist, caught out by his own strawman definition of information. Thats made my year.
Quote:
An patronising (and insistent!) dickhead with a lot of tough questions, and even tougher answers.
50% of that statement is true. The rest is refuted by the evidence.
Quote:
You know, I've been asked a lot of questions in this thread, and really haven't posted my own set. Here's a few for you naturalists out there to cut your teeth on:
1 ) Explain how human and dinosaur tracks are in the same layer of fossilized mud. The link to the find(s) in question is present earlier in the thread.
2 ) Explain how something a complex as a cell can come from chance.
3 ) Explain why we haven't found intellegent life yet (or visa versa), if evolution is so supposedly easy.
4 ) Explain why we've never observed new genetic information being made.
5 ) Explain why panspermia is a scientific theory.
6 ) Explain why it is that degenerative genetic mutations are increasing, and why we're not getting more "fit" as a race.
7 ) Explain why the church gets such a bad rap for the crusades, and how stalin's naturalistic mess was ignored.
8 ) Explain why the term "billions" of years has become the alchemists stone of the 20th century?
9 ) Explain why you can recognize a watch as being designed, but not phosphofructokinase?
10) Explain why Hassan i Sabbah is getting more and more progressively loud.
Oh, and somebody please ask me why the rods and cones in your eyes are installed backward! (Because Dawkins thought that implied an incomptent creator)
1) This is a well known creationist lie. I've heard it before and seen it refuted beyond question. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd actually go research the counter evidence.
From ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG no less "Arguments Creationists SHOULDN'T USE"!!!!!!
'Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs'
FOR FUCKS SAKE, AT LEAST GET A CLUE AS TO WHAT CREATIONISTS ARE SAYING THIS CENTURY!!!
2) irrelavent. You know what - God made it, and evolution refined it over 4 billion years into humans.
3) We just did, it was called "homo-florensis"
4) We have.
5) Never heard of it. Hey I'm honest.
6) They aren't and we are.
7) The crusades lasted a thousand years by thousands of evil people all pursuing a pipe dream. Stalin was one man, and no one claims he wasn't anything but evil. Perhaps you make the statement because you like to make an immature emotional link between evil people and evolution. Dont forget, evil, murder, social breakdown, rape, sexual promiscuity, drug use, abortion didn't ever happen until Darwin proposed evolutionary theory"
8) Because its the truth.
9) we have proof that a watch is designed.
10) Its annoying that you cant tell a brainwashed person he is so.
nah, i dont give a fuck why actually. Let me guess? "The fact that the eye is wired backwards is evidence that God did it" You know my favourite one is "Soccer balls dont bounce as good on Astroturf as they do on Grass. Soccer clubs are replacing their Astroturf with Grass because it makes the balls bounce better, Man couldn't make a better grass than natural grass, so grass is evidence that God designed Grass". Fucking Classic!!!!
YOU would save yourself a lot of greif IF before you post anything, ASK GOD if the evidence you are about to present is really the way he did it, the absolute truth, or is it a lie? God doesn't lie. Satan does. Satan talks to you quite a bit.
What's the job of Satan? to trick you into seperation with God? Are you worshipping a God that is denyable by every piece of knowledge known to man? Are you worshipping a God that couldn't be the creator of the universe,world and man as we can clearly see it today? Are you worshipping a book that cleary derived from the astrotheology's you are warned not to look at? Are you worshipping a character that is NOT God, thus breaking the 1st commandment "thou shall not have any Gods before me".
Satan has you Benzene. Satans most potent deception is pretending to be God. You are not worshipping God.
Creation theory is Satans deception to make you deny everything that God has created, by making you think you are worshipping God's creation. Genesis did not happen. The evidence, facts and reality tells us this.
The Bible is Satans deception to make you think you are reading Gods word. God, or the claimed authors did not write the Bible. The evidence, facts and reality tells us this.
Jesus is Satans deception to seperate you from God, believing you are worshipping God. Jesus did not exist. The evidence, facts and reality tells us this.
I would chose God. God is consistant with the truth, evidence, facts and reality. Chose God.
As MarcUK pointed out, this is a discussion on evolution and not the origins of life. We have you admitting that microevolution does exist because it has been observed. I need you also to admit that there are no new gene products between chimpanzees and humans, just regulatory differences of already existing gene products and some mutations which affect regulation and protein function. Is it then that chimps and humans are the same species? I have to say that this fact is all the evidence I need to combine what has been observed -- microevolution, with what has been proposed to occur over long periods of time -- macroevolution.
As MarcUK pointed out, this is a discussion on evolution and not the origins of life. We have you admitting that microevolution does exist because it has been observed. I need you also to admit that there are no new gene products between chimpanzees and humans, just regulatory differences of already existing gene products and some mutations which affect regulation and protein function. Is it then that chimps and humans are the same species? I have to say that this fact is all the evidence I need to combine what has been observed -- microevolution, with what has been proposed to occur over long periods of time -- macroevolution.
he also admitted that information increase was no problem. Thats all you need to go from a single cell to a human being as defined by a proper understanding of the theory of evolution - and it has been observed too. He just admitted macroevolution too.
Comments
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THERMODYNAMICS. You've been 'hammering' on thermodynamics and you've had half a dozen posts pointing out your errors. Go and frigging read them. Pages 2 and 3. Go and read them.
Yes, I have read them, and responded to them. Go and read them.
My qualifications are in English literature and performance and I write about African hunter gatherer cultures and paleolithic parietal art. So what?
So let me get this straight...you're basically an artist with a hobby and you're telling me, a biophysicist, that I don't understand thermodynamics?
Originally posted by benzene
So let me get this straight...you're basically an artist with a hobby and you're telling me, a biophysicist, that I don't understand thermodynamics?
so tell me Mr Biophysicist, what is the biological mechanism that prevents information being added to the genome.
I can answer the question, and I dont have a qualification in anything.
Originally posted by tonton
I find it funny that Benzene, as educated as he claims to be, is using the non-sequitur "naturalist" which means "nudist" in almost all references.
I find it funny that Benzene as clever as he claims to be doesn't realise that it's not a question of whether it's A or B, chance or design, doesn't realise that it's A or designed following a literal interpretation of Genesis.
He can spout off everything till he knows till he's blue in the face. until even I'm convinced that the theory of evolution is not right, but the Question will still be "Prove that it happened in accordance with the literal interpretation of Genesis".
Originally posted by MarcUK
so tell me Mr Biophysicist, what is the biological mechanism that prevents information being added to the genome.
I can answer the question, and I dont have a qualification in anything.
MarcUK, this is the second time I've had to remind you of this. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you post:
(from page 3)
Originally posted by benzene
I didn't say there was a biological mechanism that prevented the addition of more genetic material.
Prokaryotes are usually very stingy with their genomic data, but they make up for that by dividing very quickly. (as well as picking up DNA from their surroundings)
Eukaryotes on the other hand, have pretty sophisticated DNA handling techniques, so they can tolerate a lot more excess material, which allows for very fine tuning of the control mechanisms of the actually transcribed material. (which recently was found to be probably less than 25,000 genes in humans, link)
That's not even the problem. Copying DNA is one thing, generating useful DNA from scratch is a completely different issue.
Originally poste by tonton
I find it funny that Benzene, as educated as he claims to be, is using the non-sequitur "naturalist" which means "nudist" in almost all references
I do not use the term "evolutionists" because evolution means a change in genetic information over time.
I use the term "naturalist" in application to people who believe natural processes only.
In addition, I think you should take a look at this link and get a different dictionary.
Originally posted by MarcUK
He can spout off everything till he knows till he's blue in the face. until even I'm convinced that the theory of evolution is not right, but the Question will still be "Prove that it happened in accordance with the literal interpretation of Genesis".
I'm not denying that there are two questions, as a matter of fact I've said that very thing oh, about five times in the course of this thread.
Currently however, because of the opening post in this thread, we seem to be concentrating on evolution and origins. Not whether or not the bible is true. (Even though I have proffered explanations pertaining to questions about the bible).
Originally posted by benzene
So let me get this straight...you're basically an artist with a hobby and you're telling me, a biophysicist, that I don't understand thermodynamics?
I guess the best explanation is the failure that is the american education system...
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I guess the best explanation is the failure that is the american education system...
Really. Where did you go to school?
And even if you are a biochemist, give one example of where I've been wrong in my earlier statements.
If you think my statements about thermodynamics of the cell are incorrect then listen to what Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (3rd edition) has to say (and this is all within the first 20 pages):
"In any physical or chemical change, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant, although the form of the energy may change." (page 8 )
"Living cells are chemical engines that function at constant temperature." (page 8 )
(emphasis mine)
"Living organisms are interdependent, exchanging energy and matter via the environment." (page 9)
"The amount of energy actually avalible to do work, called the free energy (delta G) will always be somewhat less than the theoretical amount of energy released, because some energy is dissipated as [heat]..." (page 9)
"Chemical reactions can also be coupled so that an energy-releasing reaction drives an energy-requiring one." (page 9, emphasis mine)
Now, even for cellular reactions that are endergonic, many undergo conversion at such a low rate as to be impossible for the supporting of life without enzymes (like the breakdown of glucose). (and the formation of macromolecules like proteins and DNA is hardly endergonic)
As a matter of fact, Lehninger even titles a subsection of the first chapter "Biological information transfer". (page 13).
"A living cell is a self-contained, self-assembling, self-adjusting, self-perpetuating constant-temperature system of molecules that extracts free energy and raw materias from within it's environment." (page 18 )
Point: you have to have a mechanism in place to couple the reactions that are responsible for life. Starting life from basic components has a much too large overhead to be even remotely possible. You can't just throw energy into a reaction and expect anything without the proper mechanism in place already.
If you really are a biochemist (or anybody that's even had a course in chemistry), you will recognize these statements, and acknowledge that they are true. Show me where someone has shown a protein to autoassemble. (And the miller-urey experiment made L & R amino acids, not proteins, so don't give me that).
Sorry about finding background info (granted not very hard) because I often approach these situations with reservation unless someone has proven trust worthy. You seem to be trusting of all of us with your more personal information, so the least I can do is to tell you that I am a graduate student in Biochemistry/Biophysics at UPENN. Yes, everything you list is more or less true, I would take issues with the vocabulary used however.
I can however state that it is a profound fault of scientists to write things off as impossible because they cannot conceive of it. This goes for scientist who say God cannot exist because it isn't possible. I say god does not exist because it/she/he/they are not necessary, immortal soul be damned (though really, my background is American Conservative Judaism, and we have no place for heaven or hell or even a soul -- it makes the meaning of good works a little more personal, if you know what I mean)...
The cell has never been claimed to have come about in one step. What is even more convincing of this is that all of the genetic family trees of enzymes (as you know functional and not simply structural proteins) point to a common ancestor before which we know nothing. Now -- if you want to claim that God created this ancestral bacteria-like mono-cellular entity from which all life has emerged, I can't provide one iota of evidence that would contradict that since well there isn't any -- I can however point out that this would make everything in the Judeo-Christian genesis a lie. Also of note is that almost none of our enzymes are optimized. These things compound in my mind to suggest that we are still very much in the process of evolving, after all, we certainly aren't perfect if we are in God's image.
One thought experiment i need you to do for me, Elihu: An inorganic crystal capable of adding phosphates to the known to occur spontaneously nucleotides. Lets say a pool of this broth sits in some complex equlibrium for a long time -- it is quite probable that a large number of poly nucleotides of different lengths will form with time. Some of these may have the property that "pathogenic DNA" has -- that is it is quite likely that once they get long enough the reaction which extends the length of the nucleotide chain may be autocatalyzed by approximation (I will ask you to recall that most catalysis involves simply getting the reactants in close proximity, that is approximating the ideal reaction collision geometry). This means that after a certain length the chain will eventually fold onto itself until it can add no more charged nucleotides. Some fraction of these will be unfolded at least partially at almost all reasonable temperatures. These unfolded species would allow for the binding of smaller fragments that have very similar if not completely identical sequence identity -- once again aiding catalysis of the extension reaction by approximation. I am not claiming this occurs quickly -- but it could happen. We can predict that over time we would find a build up of the best sequences of nucleotides -- those that have less geometric restrictions on extension, and perhaps even some that do more than simply catalyze by approximation. These sequences of nucleotides may not constitute a formal definition of life, but they catalyze their own creation which is as near to life as i think a chemical system can get.
What does this need from the Universe? An inorganic crystal capable of catalyzing the charging reaction, and the existence of nucleotides.
What I am trying to suggest is that everything that we do as life forms, something inorganic does out there -- in fact there are reactions that inorganic complexes do that life doesn't due -- most likely because of the rarity of metals required.
One last comment: The "pathogenic DNA" that I discussed above does exist -- it tends to need the existence of cellular machinery for its replication to be competitive with the current lifeforms on earth -- but in a situation in which there is nothing but it, these reactions can take decades and there would still be a significant chance that it would survive to the next coupling reaction. Also of note is that evidently a great deal of the reactions that us lifeforms do are very close to spontaneous -- that is there is very rarely a large thermodynamic barrier to any one reaction.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Elihu (and now benzene isn't simply a carcinogen, he is an honest to goodness human),
Sorry about finding background info (granted not very hard) because I often approach these situations with reservation unless someone has proven trust worthy. You seem to be trusting of all of us with your more personal information, so the least I can do is to tell you that I am a graduate student in Biochemistry/Biophysics at UPENN. Yes, everything you list is more or less true, I would take issues with the vocabulary used however.
Hey, I have nothing to hide. If you had asked me my name to find out my credentials (I think I even linked to my homepage in my profile) I would have given it to you.
I'm actually very glad to be talking to a fellow (formal) scientist. We at least have same foundation of common background on which to talk.
I can however state that it is a profound fault of scientists to write things off as impossible because they cannot conceive of it. This goes for scientist who say God cannot exist because it isn't possible. I say god does not exist because it/she/he/they are not necessary, immortal soul be damned (though really, my background is American Conservative Judaism, and we have no place for heaven or hell or even a soul -- it makes the meaning of good works a little more personal, if you know what I mean)...
Although the imagination does play a large part in science (i.e. the generation of an hypotheses), they must be backed up with solid fact. In that regard, it seems that the design of the cell is a de facto standard for design.
The cell has never been claimed to have come about in one step.
This is true. However, even with the thought experiment you postulate below, the probabilities of even a single cell forming are not even remotely possible. Here's the reason why:
1) Need a localized high concentration of nucleotides/amino acid
2) Need an autocatalyzing reaction (ok, your crystal is a hypotheses of that)
3) Need to have that autocatalyzing reaction work approximately 200 times to make a minimal competent complement of cellular machinery (and 200 is a very generous number, as you would agree)
4) Need a lipid bilayer
5) Need somethin in the way of a reverse-reverse transcriptase to turn the protein into RNA.
Even if you subscribe to the "RNA world" hypotheses, all of the same problems apply.
What is even more convincing of this is that all of the genetic family trees of enzymes (as you know functional and not simply structural proteins) point to a common ancestor before which we know nothing.
Actually, on of the P.I.s I worked with had some interesting research in which large "superfamilies" of proteins were classified, but we never observed them converging across the board. I've heard the general statements, but there is always a large gap between analogous proteins in different families. Of course, this could be explained by an extensive proteome history that we're not aware of (but then again, that's making the problem much more complex).
If I was designing proteins, I wouldn't reinvent the wheel for each one, which is probably why the eukaryotic ribosome looks (on the macroscopic scale) quite similar to the prokaryotic version. I don't think God would do it much different either.
Now -- if you want to claim that God created this ancestral bacteria-like mono-cellular entity from which all life has emerged, I can't provide one iota of evidence that would contradict that since well there isn't any -- I can however point out that this would make everything in the Judeo-Christian genesis a lie.
If you have to have a God at all (and one as intellegent as I think he is), why would he make just a single celled organism and stop there? It doesn't make any sense.
Also of note is that almost none of our enzymes are optimized. These things compound in my mind to suggest that we are still very much in the process of evolving, after all, we certainly aren't perfect if we are in God's image.
I'm guessing that you mean our proteins haven't all reached turnover perfection. In many cases, the cell would want unoptimized enzymes, so as to provide unfinished intermediates for other processes. Also, remember what I said about humans having been accumulating genetic defects for a long time. As a matter of fact, the bible talks about early humans with very long lifespans.
One thought experiment i need you to do for me, Elihu: An inorganic crystal capable of adding phosphates to the known to occur spontaneously nucleotides. Lets say a pool of this broth sits in some complex equlibrium for a long time -- it is quite probable that a large number of poly nucleotides of different lengths will form with time. Some of these may have the property that "pathogenic DNA" has -- that is it is quite likely that once they get long enough the reaction which extends the length of the nucleotide chain may be autocatalyzed by approximation (I will ask you to recall that most catalysis involves simply getting the reactants in close proximity, that is approximating the ideal reaction collision geometry). This means that after a certain length the chain will eventually fold onto itself until it can add no more charged nucleotides. Some fraction of these will be unfolded at least partially at almost all reasonable temperatures. These unfolded species would allow for the binding of smaller fragments that have very similar if not completely identical sequence identity -- once again aiding catalysis of the extension reaction by approximation. I am not claiming this occurs quickly -- but it could happen. We can predict that over time we would find a build up of the best sequences of nucleotides -- those that have less geometric restrictions on extension, and perhaps even some that do more than simply catalyze by approximation. These sequences of nucleotides may not constitute a formal definition of life, but they catalyze their own creation which is as near to life as i think a chemical system can get.
I have heard of this before, but I believe that they were using the surface of clay particles, not an inorganic crystal. Also, it (as you would admit) does rely on a lot of handwaving (as well as some of the problems I've posted above). A variant of this theory was postulated in the book I mentioned earlier, "Biochemical Predistination", that some biological molecules were more "fit" than others. This has never been observed, however.
But ok. Let's say that you have made an autocatalyzing DNA/RNA molecule. We are no closer to life than we would be on mars by jumping toward it. We still need an almost endless supply of nucleotides present (for which a mechanism has not been explained), and we need a transcription machine to get to proteins. Too many holes, and they present themselves much too quickly.
What does this need from the Universe? An inorganic crystal capable of catalyzing the charging reaction, and the existence of nucleotides.
See some of my points above. Clay you have a lot of, but a mechanism to generate nucleotides has not. (even miller's experiment hardly made "a lot" of much simpler amino acids)
What I am trying to suggest is that everything that we do as life forms, something inorganic does out there -- in fact there are reactions that inorganic complexes do that life doesn't due -- most likely because of the rarity of metals required.
Wait a second. You're telling me there's a crystal that specifically adds a phosphate to the first carbon of fructose?
It's starting to sound like you're advocating something like the "andromeda strain"
One last comment: The "pathogenic DNA" that I discussed above does exist -- it tends to need the existence of cellular machinery for its replication to be competitive with the current lifeforms on earth -- but in a situation in which there is nothing but it, these reactions can take decades and there would still be a significant chance that it would survive to the next coupling reaction. Also of note is that evidently a great deal of the reactions that us lifeforms do are very close to spontaneous -- that is there is very rarely a large thermodynamic barrier to any one reaction.
You have a problem though, when you're talking about biomolecules, you hardly have even days for them to live in solution (especially when they're not in laboratory conditions), let alone the decades or thousands/millions of years for them to find any kind of propogating reaction mechanism.
And finally, there are many reactions necessary for life that have large thermodynamic barriers. Enzymes are what allow organisms to lower that activation energy, or to break the problem up into smaller chunks.
Also, be specific about where I'm wrong. Statements like "I can as well as anyone here who has had an interest in thermodynamics tell you you are completely and totally wrong." are completely misleading. Now that I know you are a fellow scientist, I'm going to expect more.
Originally posted by benzene
MarcUK, this is the second time I've had to remind you of this. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you post:
(from page 3)
That's not even the problem. Copying DNA is one thing, generating useful DNA from scratch is a completely different issue.
sorry, missed it the first time.
Thanks! An admission that 'information' can increase, and therefore an admission that Macroevolution is possible. An admission that the theory of evolution is correct, regardless of whatever started the process off - remember, it only had to happen by chance one time in the entire universe for us to be talking about it.
I rest my case, the theory of Evolution is Correct, as confirmed by the smartest Creationist i've ever had the pleasure of talking too!. Until I see evidence that the earth is 10000 years old, there is no reason to believe that it happened according to Genesis, and every reason to accept that I am here because I evolved.
byebye
Originally posted by benzene
So let me get this straight...you're basically an artist with a hobby and you're telling me, a biophysicist, that I don't understand thermodynamics?
I'm making a serious, grown-up contribution to paleoanthropological research and I make a living doing it.
As far as I can tell, your only contribution to society is innovation in the field of being a patronising dickhead. Extremely galling.
Incidentally, the dinosaur bone remains a fossil (not, as you tried to have us believe, 'an unfossilised t-rex bone') and you still haven't offered a serious explanation for the sealing of the Chauvet caves that accords with a young earth.
Incidentally, I've just found a lot of material on that bone and I'm going to be reading it.
Please don't patronise me anymore. I will have to tell you to fuck off.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Please don't patronise me anymore. I will have to tell you to fuck off.
As far as he's concerned, Anger is an expression of being confronted by the truth when you are posessed by Satan.
Originally posted by MarcUK
sorry, missed it the first time.
Thanks! An admission that 'information' can increase, and therefore an admission that Macroevolution is possible. An admission that the theory of evolution is correct, regardless of whatever started the process off - remember, it only had to happen by chance one time in the entire universe for us to be talking about it.
Photocopying a single piece of paper a thousand times "makes" more information, but does not result in any new information. Macro evolution requires reams of new material, not recycled old genes.
Also for macroevolution to be true, it didn't have to happen only once, it had to happen several billion times. (for each and every new gene that ever existed)
I rest my case, the theory of Evolution is Correct, as confirmed by the smartest Creationist i've ever had the pleasure of talking too!. Until I see evidence that the earth is 10000 years old, there is no reason to believe that it happened according to Genesis, and every reason to accept that I am here because I evolved.
byebye
Sorry, you haven't gotten off that easily.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
'm making a serious, grown-up contribution to paleoanthropological research and I make a living doing it.
As far as I can tell, your only contribution to society is innovation in the field of being a patronising dickhead. Extremely galling.
An patronising (and insistent!) dickhead with a lot of tough questions, and even tougher answers.
Incidentally, the dinosaur bone remains a fossil (not, as you tried to have us believe, 'an unfossilised t-rex bone') and you still haven't offered a serious explanation for the sealing of the Chauvet caves that accords with a young earth.
And you seem to be intentionally ignoring what I said, and about the reason we were even talking about the bone in the first place.
Please don't patronise me anymore. I will have to tell you to fuck off.
How mature of you. You seem to be getting a little shrill these days.
You know, I've been asked a lot of questions in this thread, and really haven't posted my own set. Here's a few for you naturalists out there to cut your teeth on:
1 ) Explain how human and dinosaur tracks are in the same layer of fossilized mud. The link to the find(s) in question is present earlier in the thread.
2 ) Explain how something a complex as a cell can come from chance.
3 ) Explain why we haven't found intellegent life yet (or visa versa), if evolution is so supposedly easy.
4 ) Explain why we've never observed new genetic information being made.
5 ) Explain why panspermia is a scientific theory.
6 ) Explain why it is that degenerative genetic mutations are increasing, and why we're not getting more "fit" as a race.
7 ) Explain why the church gets such a bad rap for the crusades, and how stalin's naturalistic mess was ignored.
8 ) Explain why the term "billions" of years has become the alchemists stone of the 20th century?
9 ) Explain why you can recognize a watch as being designed, but not phosphofructokinase?
10) Explain why Hassan i Sabbah is getting more and more progressively loud.
Oh, and somebody please ask me why the rods and cones in your eyes are installed backward! (Because Dawkins thought that implied an incomptent creator)
Originally posted by benzene
.
I'll post the intro here for everyone else to read:
"Traditionally, there was little hope that biomolecules might be recovered from bone more than a few thousand years old. However, 20_years ago, partial amino acid sequences were identified from the shells of mollusks 80 million years old (33). Gurley et al. (34) followed with a report of amino acids in the bony tissues of the Late Jurassic (150 million years ago) sauropod dinosaur, Seismosaurus, and more recently the small and highly acidic bone protein, osteocalcin, has been recognized immunologically in extracts of dinosaurian bone (35). Stable isotope studies (36), including those done on the specimen used in the following study (37), indicate that at least some of these molecules are endogenous to the fossils, rather than arising from younger exogenous contaminants. These results suggest that significant protein remnants may exist in fossil bone. In light of the above studies, it was decided to examine nonpermineralized dinosaur bone for biomolecular degradation products, including hemoglobin."
Very interesting. If you remember, the whole point of this topic was to state that your previous statement about the ability to date the fossilization process was trash. This paper goes to prove my point, right from the opening statement. Fact of the matter is, unless you know the conditions in which the bone was first situated, you cannot make anything better than a guess at how long it's been there. A perfect example: link.
No. Not at all.
The whole point of 'this topic' was to call you out for claiming that an unfossilised dinosaur bone had been discovered as proof for your young earth nonsense when in fact the bone was a fossil. It wanted to assert that you were repeating 'a lie' you had been fed.
You're very proud that this first paragraph 'proves your point', but for the life of me I can't see what point it proves other than that the bone was a fossil (because it is a fossil, so that's a fact we can be certain of) and that the people who were extracting unperimineralised proteins from it believed it be very ancient indeed.
So. The 'problem' of dating fossils.
In the fossil record we see (bullet point for the hard of thinking):
- sequential transistions from one class of organism to another
- simpler life forms early in the geological column, larger and more anatomically complex forms appearing later
- like, vertabrates first, simple vertebrates next, then jawed fishes, then amphibiansm then reptiles, then birds, then mammals. Say.
- extinct species and extinct flora appearing and disappearing together
And yet, in a single flood, over forty days, dozens of sedimentary layers were allowed to accumulate sorting animals by complexity. OK. Miracle water? You bet.And extinct flora is found in the same sedimentary layers as animal fossils. In the times of Noah's flood, apparently, vegetation didn't float. No, it went the same sorting-by-age-and-complexity route as the herbivores that ate it while Noah floated on top waving goodbye to the drowning velociraptors and unicorns.
And as soon as you find hominid artifacts or fossils in the same sedimentary layers as dinosaurs, do let me know.
And there is still no evidence for flood water in Lascaux, Chauvet, Alta Mira, or Storm Pass. Beautiful, ancient paintings.
And etc and etc.
If you would like to discuss how the Flood sorted creatures as neatly as it did I would be absolutely delighted. I can't wait to hear your explanation of how the oak trees made a run for the high ground along with the willows and the sabre-toothed tigers.
I'll keep my radiometric dating and estimates of geological processes, thanks. Even if the dating's imperfect it's impossible for it to be out as many orders of magnitude as it would have to be for the planet to be as young as you claim it is.
You believe that one single flood arranged the fossil record with complex fossils overlying simple fossils, distributed ordered layers of incongruous sedimentary material and simulated successive ice ages.
You asking me to believe that, although the speed of light is constant and the universe is enormous and ancient, this planet is the youngest thing in it (unless God sped up the speed of light for a few thousand years for reasons best known to himself). Cosmology tells us the universe is ancient. Geology tells us that continents move across the crust, they're still doing it, they've been doing it for billions of years. Genetics accords, telling us how species are related. Mitochondrial DNA decay rates (something I do actually know something about), which are predictable, can even be used to give us an indication of ancient human migrations and the age of our species.
And you are accusing me of wanting the facts to fit my thesis?
How dare you?
Originally posted by benzene
10) Explain why Hassan i Sabbah is getting more and more progressively loud.
Because you are trying to wind me up. It's an excellent tactic; one I pioneered myself. You are very good at it. Congratulations.
I am still right.
Originally posted by benzene
1 ) Explain how human and dinosaur tracks are in the same layer of fossilized mud. The link to the find(s) in question is present earlier in the thread.
The short answer is 'they aren't.' And the long answer is 'they are not'. Ba-dum-bum. The Paluxy River 'man tracks' appear to be eroded dinosaur footprints. They bear the prints of dinosaur metatarsals and whatnot, apparently. Some of them are carved. It seems that even creationists have given up on these tracks.
Here is a link.
Originally posted by benzene
Explain how something a complex as a cell can come from chance.[/quote
Read some Dawkins. I can't believe someone as clued up on this young earth nonsense as you hasn't read up the other side.
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why we haven't found intellegent life yet (or visa versa), if evolution is so supposedly easy.
The universe is very big, benzene. It's really, really big. Really big. And I don't remember anyone saying it was 'easy'. Merely that it's possible and it's clearly happened here.
Originally posted by benzene
[BExplain why we've never observed new genetic information being made.[/b]
Er, we do. We have. We observe it all the time. Is this a trick question?
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why it is that degenerative genetic mutations are increasing, and why we're not getting more "fit" as a race.
This is an interesting question but it's predicated on an outdated understanding of evolutionary theory. 'Survival of the fittest' isn't a defining component of current evolutionary thinking at all. It's an interesting question because it's been posited that as a species we've 'beaten our genes' through our success at adapting to environments, and there might be some truth to that.
We're a young species, less than a million years old. Nonetheless, different populations are certainly magnificently adapted to their particular environments, which is why northern Europeans are fair (vitamin D synthesis baby), eastern Africans have a natural resistance to malaria, many desert people have a fold of skin in their upper eyelids, indigenous Australians don't ever get melanomas, stuff like that.
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why the church gets such a bad rap for the crusades, and how stalin's naturalistic mess was ignored.
OK. And who, exactly, is 'ignoring' what Stalin did? And why are you making this curious comparison? And why is what Stalin did 'naturalistic'? Man, change your terms. Stalin's rule was bad and awful. The Crusades were a mistake. People do fucked up things in the name of good ideals. Welcome to the human race, we ain't all that nice.
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why the term "billions" of years has become the alchemists stone of the 20th century?
When did you stop beating your wife. Billions of years is an accurate number according to all the available evidence. That's why. Why is 10,000 years the alchemist's stone of young earthers?
Originally posted by benzene
Explain why you can recognize a watch as being designed, but not phosphofructokinase?
I don't know what phosphofruckinase is. Why do I have nipples and an appendix?
2 ) Explain how something a complex as a cell can come from chance.
You say the probabilities are too small (but non zero), I say the universe is big (and old) enought to compensate. The Theory of Evolution does not provide an explanation for the appearance of life.
Explain why we haven't found intellegent life yet (or visa versa), if evolution is so supposedly easy.
Again, the universe is big and we have no idea how many instances of intelligent life there are in it (I'd guess more than none
Originally posted by benzene
Here's the reason why:
1) Need a localized high concentration of nucleotides/amino acid
2) Need an autocatalyzing reaction (ok, your crystal is a hypotheses of that)
3) Need to have that autocatalyzing reaction work approximately 200 times to make a minimal competent complement of cellular machinery (and 200 is a very generous number, as you would agree)
4) Need a lipid bilayer
5) Need somethin in the way of a reverse-reverse transcriptase to turn the protein into RNA.
1) We have detected the (presumably IR) spectral signatures of both nucleotides and amino acids in distant nebulae. They arise spontaneously in space. High concentrations aren't necessary unless you want this to be done on a laboratory time scale -- and I am trying very hard to argue that we have bucket loads of time so that really isn't an issue.
2) Autocatalyzing reactions are only necessary after the first basic components have been created -- in my example, the activated nucleotides. But autocatalyzing reactions are necessarily the ones that would have a reduced kinetic barrier in a system with no other catalysis, that is the products of the reactions that are autocatalyzed would build up much more rapidly than those that aren't autocatalyzed.
3) I have again never argued that all the components for life needed to be in the first reaction vessels, if you will. I think we can both agree that there are selection pressures on reactions which are catalyzed well, that don't build up side products that damage the catalyst or kill the substrates, and even so far as catalytic reactions whose products protect the reaction conditions.
4) Lipid bilayers are quite obviously one of the most recently evolved traits of cellular life -- think of the major thing that really separates physiologically the three forms of cellular life (prokaryotes, archea, and eukaryotes). It is their membranes, how many, how diverse, and what linkages are formed between the phosphorylated glycerol and the alkyl chain. But what is clear is that there was a lot of glycerol and phosphate in the initial cesspool of life. As far as these lipid bilayers being generated by catalyst -- well they are now, and there is no functional reason to believe that there creation couldn't be catalyzed by nucleotide based catalytic mechanisms (although, given the timing of the creation of the membranes in the branches of life the machinery for peptide synthesis may well have existed. Also, as we both know, lipids and their related precursor molecules will form bilayers spontaneously. All it takes is a pressure to develop a membrane around the ever more complicating "machinery" -- and we know why we need membranes, it creates the possibility of generating energy from potential gradients across the membrane as well as providing a means to separate the growing list of reactions preformed by our biomolecules from undesirable side products (the second probably came as a reason before the first). Also, if there was as much glycerol as i think there was in the cesspool, these bilayers wouldn't be as selective as ours are today -- and there is no reason to think that they would need to be.
5) It is an insurmountable problem to think of this as having arisen from peptides and somehow -- mysteriously -- got back translated to RNA or DNA. However, I will not say that it is impossible -- a system that accidently creates the biomolecules that are keeping it around has a better chance of surviving than those that don't -- hence back translation by being able to produce more catalysts. I do actually subscribe to the simpler RNA world hypothesis since we have a great deal of evidence that these things can be catalytic -- it also reduces the complexity of the initial steps, involving less inorganic compounds and more stuff we know works.
If I was designing proteins, I wouldn't reinvent the wheel for each one, which is probably why the eukaryotic ribosome looks (on the macroscopic scale) quite similar to the prokaryotic version. I don't think God would do it much different either.
And if I were nature, I wouldn't mess with things that work. However, as a person who does de novo protein design, I must say, at this point we are reinventing the wheel with each iteration. There are rules we garnered from nature/geometry, but really each design isn't related to the previous designs as much as we find in nature. Perhaps we are going about this stupidly, but the ability to make leaps from one protein design to another is a trait of human intelligence...
If you have to have a God at all (and one as intellegent as I think he is), why would he make just a single celled organism and stop there? It doesn't make any sense.
Well, there is growing evidence that that is all God needed to have done -- after you have a single celled organism containing all of the mechanisms for the diversification of life, natural history and random chance tells the rest of the story. If I were God, I would stop there, because I am a scientist and not an engineer. If I was an engineer, I wouldn't want things to change from my initial set up. So is your God a scientist or an engineer?
I'm guessing that you mean our proteins haven't all reached turnover perfection. In many cases, the cell would want unoptimized enzymes, so as to provide unfinished intermediates for other processes. Also, remember what I said about humans having been accumulating genetic defects for a long time. As a matter of fact, the bible talks about early humans with very long lifespans.
The bible wasn't written when these people were "alive." From everything we can tell, people living before the spread of agriculture probably did live longer because their particular nutrient requirements were better suited to hunting and foraging. We have all the genetic evidence in the world to suggest that unless something is seriously off the decrease in telomere length of any and all humans provides a reasonable maximum life span. I believe that this is significantly shorter than many of the people's ages in the old testament.
But ok. Let's say that you have made an autocatalyzing DNA/RNA molecule. We are no closer to life than we would be on mars by jumping toward it. We still need an almost endless supply of nucleotides present (for which a mechanism has not been explained), and we need a transcription machine to get to proteins. Too many holes, and they present themselves much too quickly.
Actually you don't need an endless supply, you need a degredation reaction that is much slower than the polymerization reaction. You do need enough to get to the point that the system can make them itself -- acetate, ammonia, CO2, glycerol, water and phosphate. There exist several syntheses to making nucleotides, pick one, it can occur in nature. Again, if we take the view that proteins are where life started, we get nowhere fast (and again, I am not saying however that this couldn't be the case).
You have a problem though, when you're talking about biomolecules, you hardly have even days for them to live in solution (especially when they're not in laboratory conditions), let alone the decades or thousands/millions of years for them to find any kind of propogating reaction mechanism.
Actually that isn't true. In truly sterile conditions (which let me tell you, young earth was), biomolecules (excepting largely complex proteins which don't unfold reversibly) are perfectly stable at almost all temperatures an aqueous solution can have. Most instability is due to irreversible unfolding of protein, and/or nucleases or proteases which now (due to the profundity of life) coat the planet.
And finally, there are many reactions necessary for life that have large thermodynamic barriers. Enzymes are what allow organisms to lower that activation energy, or to break the problem up into smaller chunks.
No. There exist kinetic barriers to reactions in nature. A thermodynamic barrier is one in which the product is so high in energy compared to the starting materials that equilibrium lies far to the starting materials. Meaning the reaction would be nearly impossible unless the product was being consumed. Kinetic barriers are overcome by time. Thermodynamic barriers are overcome by chemistry.
Also, be specific about where I'm wrong. Statements like "I can as well as anyone here who has had an interest in thermodynamics tell you you are completely and totally wrong." are completely misleading. Now that I know you are a fellow scientist, I'm going to expect more. [/B]
I have to get back to you on this one...
Originally posted by benzene
[B]Photocopying a single piece of paper a thousand times "makes" more information, but does not result in any new information.[b]
I've already posted 2 links of evidence of increasing information which do not fit your photocopier analogy. If this doesn't count, be sure to tell us what your definition of the non-scientific term "information" so we can laugh our asses off.
Macro evolution requires reams of new material, not recycled old genes.
Also for macroevolution to be true, it didn't have to happen only once, it had to happen several billion times. (for each and every new gene that ever existed)
Absolute fucking proof that you do not know what the theory of evolution is, or you are deliberately lying. Im beginning to think that your qualifications are nothing but lies to, and that you are nothing more than a very well read creationist whose head if full of the bullshit of the books you read. - "for each and every new gene that ever existed = macroevolution?" AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA AHAHAH HA - TWAT
Sorry, you haven't gotten off that easily.
I dont need to. I've just been given proof that the theory of evolution is correct, by a lying creationist, caught out by his own strawman definition of information. Thats made my year.
An patronising (and insistent!) dickhead with a lot of tough questions, and even tougher answers.
50% of that statement is true. The rest is refuted by the evidence.
You know, I've been asked a lot of questions in this thread, and really haven't posted my own set. Here's a few for you naturalists out there to cut your teeth on:
1 ) Explain how human and dinosaur tracks are in the same layer of fossilized mud. The link to the find(s) in question is present earlier in the thread.
2 ) Explain how something a complex as a cell can come from chance.
3 ) Explain why we haven't found intellegent life yet (or visa versa), if evolution is so supposedly easy.
4 ) Explain why we've never observed new genetic information being made.
5 ) Explain why panspermia is a scientific theory.
6 ) Explain why it is that degenerative genetic mutations are increasing, and why we're not getting more "fit" as a race.
7 ) Explain why the church gets such a bad rap for the crusades, and how stalin's naturalistic mess was ignored.
8 ) Explain why the term "billions" of years has become the alchemists stone of the 20th century?
9 ) Explain why you can recognize a watch as being designed, but not phosphofructokinase?
10) Explain why Hassan i Sabbah is getting more and more progressively loud.
Oh, and somebody please ask me why the rods and cones in your eyes are installed backward! (Because Dawkins thought that implied an incomptent creator)
1) This is a well known creationist lie. I've heard it before and seen it refuted beyond question. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd actually go research the counter evidence.
From ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG no less "Arguments Creationists SHOULDN'T USE"!!!!!!
'Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs'
FOR FUCKS SAKE, AT LEAST GET A CLUE AS TO WHAT CREATIONISTS ARE SAYING THIS CENTURY!!!
2) irrelavent. You know what - God made it, and evolution refined it over 4 billion years into humans.
3) We just did, it was called "homo-florensis"
4) We have.
5) Never heard of it. Hey I'm honest.
6) They aren't and we are.
7) The crusades lasted a thousand years by thousands of evil people all pursuing a pipe dream. Stalin was one man, and no one claims he wasn't anything but evil. Perhaps you make the statement because you like to make an immature emotional link between evil people and evolution. Dont forget, evil, murder, social breakdown, rape, sexual promiscuity, drug use, abortion didn't ever happen until Darwin proposed evolutionary theory"
8) Because its the truth.
9) we have proof that a watch is designed.
10) Its annoying that you cant tell a brainwashed person he is so.
nah, i dont give a fuck why actually. Let me guess? "The fact that the eye is wired backwards is evidence that God did it"
YOU would save yourself a lot of greif IF before you post anything, ASK GOD if the evidence you are about to present is really the way he did it, the absolute truth, or is it a lie? God doesn't lie. Satan does. Satan talks to you quite a bit.
What's the job of Satan? to trick you into seperation with God? Are you worshipping a God that is denyable by every piece of knowledge known to man? Are you worshipping a God that couldn't be the creator of the universe,world and man as we can clearly see it today? Are you worshipping a book that cleary derived from the astrotheology's you are warned not to look at? Are you worshipping a character that is NOT God, thus breaking the 1st commandment "thou shall not have any Gods before me".
Satan has you Benzene. Satans most potent deception is pretending to be God. You are not worshipping God.
Creation theory is Satans deception to make you deny everything that God has created, by making you think you are worshipping God's creation. Genesis did not happen. The evidence, facts and reality tells us this.
The Bible is Satans deception to make you think you are reading Gods word. God, or the claimed authors did not write the Bible. The evidence, facts and reality tells us this.
Jesus is Satans deception to seperate you from God, believing you are worshipping God. Jesus did not exist. The evidence, facts and reality tells us this.
I would chose God. God is consistant with the truth, evidence, facts and reality. Chose God.
As MarcUK pointed out, this is a discussion on evolution and not the origins of life. We have you admitting that microevolution does exist because it has been observed. I need you also to admit that there are no new gene products between chimpanzees and humans, just regulatory differences of already existing gene products and some mutations which affect regulation and protein function. Is it then that chimps and humans are the same species? I have to say that this fact is all the evidence I need to combine what has been observed -- microevolution, with what has been proposed to occur over long periods of time -- macroevolution.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
benzene,
As MarcUK pointed out, this is a discussion on evolution and not the origins of life. We have you admitting that microevolution does exist because it has been observed. I need you also to admit that there are no new gene products between chimpanzees and humans, just regulatory differences of already existing gene products and some mutations which affect regulation and protein function. Is it then that chimps and humans are the same species? I have to say that this fact is all the evidence I need to combine what has been observed -- microevolution, with what has been proposed to occur over long periods of time -- macroevolution.
he also admitted that information increase was no problem. Thats all you need to go from a single cell to a human being as defined by a proper understanding of the theory of evolution - and it has been observed too. He just admitted macroevolution too.