benzene, on gravity and natural laws, you are just dead wrong and totally uninformed.
1. Scientific laws are not mathematical proofs. They are approximations used to describe observations, and they can be and have been wrong, such as with newton's law of universal gravitation.
2. Newsflash: newton's law of gravitation is not "gravity exists." Newton's law is a mathematical description of his theory about the mechanics of gravity, and this 'law' isn't even accurate.
It's really pathetic that you have a bugs bunny understanding of the 'law of gravity.' Your beliefs are clearly a case of the non-scientist being led by the pseudoscientists.
Other than the dinosaur tracks, MarcUK and Hassan i Sabbah are up to their old tricks of not reading my posts and then posting ignorantly. For those that want to make their own conclusions about the dinosaur tracks, go to this link. Also, let me get this straight: talkorigins believes that the very human-looking tracks are the result of selective water erosion of dinosaur tracks. Wow. No wonder you guys believe macroevolution can occur.
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
1) We have detected the (presumably IR) spectral signatures of both nucleotides and amino acids in distant nebulae. They arise spontaneously in space.
I've seen the research that observed nitrogen heterocyclics in space, as well as some of the simpler amino acids. Those are not, however, nucleotides. The are only the bases (and there are a lot more nitrogen heterocyclics than those used in DNA/RNA, as you know). Additionally, they are hardly in the concentrations needed for what you're talking about...but we'll get to that.
Quote:
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.
That's my point though, you don't have bucket loads of time. Unless you are trying to say that the oceans were one big pool of amino acids and nucleotides all at 100mM (which is laughable in the extreme), you're not going to get anything close to even a measureable turnover from even the most optimized enzyme/inorganic catalyst.
Additionally, there are lots of chemical reactions completely separate from life that can break down your pre-biotic materials. Oxidation immediately springs to mind (some people have postulated O2 didn't exist much early in time), free radical degradation, heat, and a million other organic reactions.
Quote:
2) Autocatalyzing reactions are only necessary after the first basic components have been created -- in my example, the activated nucleotides.
First of all, I don't know any natural mechanism (other than the ones used by life...obviously) to take a sugar, add a base, and then add three phosphates. So you're all ready in trouble, and you still have the problem with autocatalyzing reactions not having even a fleeting concentration of their substrates to work on.
Quote:
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.
Well, as you know, catalysts do not change the equilibrium position. So what you're saying is: A perfectly (or near perfectly) optimized crystal (we haven't even got to proteins yet, I'm assuming) happens upon a decent concentration of amino acids and polymerizes them (randomly, of course) into a protein. This happens a whole lot of times, until eventually a functioning protein is made. Now we have a single (functioning) protein. Great, so you just made alcohol dehydrogenase. Now what?
Quote:
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.
No, I don't agree, and here's why: Other than your last example (which, as you would have to agree, is very rare), making a single substrate from a single enzyme does not help the enzyme to be any more fit. Only when the enzyme is observed in a larger context, and where it's products can help the organism for which it works, does the enzyme make life better for itself. For those out there who don't understand what I've said so far, I'm going to make an analogy:
Say you have a shoemaker. He can make 50 shoes a day. He, however, only needs a single pair of shoes once a year. It does not benefit him to make 50 shoes a day, let alone one, unless there is a market for him.
I know Dr. Behe has been much maligned for his "irreducible complexity", but that's a great example of what's going on here.
Also, what happens if your protein is inactivated by a free radical? Then what? You have to start all over again.
Quote:
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.
Actually, lipid bilayers are observed in every life form, so I would say that they're probably one of the oldest tenets of life, but I suppose you could make a statement for a protein envelope (a la viruses).
Also, it is quite evident that lipid bilayers are quite a bit more complex than your average grease slick. They must contain transporters, structual proteins, etc.
Quote:
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.
Oh, I see, you are talking about the RNA world. Ok, that makes things a bit simpler. Well, other than the fact that little more than self-excising RNAs have been observed operating in a catalytic function, you can make the leap (as some have done) that they were the first enzymes. As well as lipid bilayers being synthesized, you are being somewhat disingenuous when you say that they are generated by a single catalyst. If I remember correctly, there's more like 12 or so.
Quote:
Also, as we both know, lipids and their related precursor molecules will form bilayers spontaneously.
Yes, but usually not structually useful ones, and they definitely still need ways to transport materials across the membrane.
Quote:
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).
Agreed, but if you get a lipid bilayer too soon, you're screwed. You need to have all of your ducks in a row before you enclose your machinery, otherwise you've done the cellular equivalent of suffocating yourself. How a pre-cell managed to corral everything it needed from randomly floating active enzymes (of which the probability of creating is slim enough), into a enclosed space is truely an exercise of the imagination.
Quote:
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.
For even this very simple step you are forced to constrain the supposed inital environment in a very unlikely setup.
Quote:
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.
I'm glad we agree about that. Although, it would be really cool to find a mechanism capable of doing that (I can't think of why a cell would ever need to). Talk about nobels for everybody (I'll share it with you!).
Quote:
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.
But that's different that the reverse-reverse transcriptase that we were talking about earlier. This is much more plausible, at least from a probability POV, but still, you're making the jump from a single catalytic RNA construct to a functioning "system". Making one enzyme is a big enough jump. Making more than one in the same vicinity and time and having them come together is...impossible.
And a note to the non-math people out there. It's possible that Elvis is still alive. Heck, it'd be possible for him to be living a hundred years from now, if only he reached some eastern shaman during his post-faked death (and subsequent coverup) that taught him the keys for long life.
However, is it plausible? Hardly.
Also, a note to MarcUK and Hassan, if they post my elvis thing out of context to "prove" I'm a moron, you really are pathetic.
Quote:
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.
Yeah, if I was a naturalist, I'd probably go with the RNA world thing myself, however, making the jump from a self-excising polynucleic acid to a repeatable enzymatic construct is a rather large one.
Quote:
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...
I looked at protein design a bit as a possible thesis, but I don't think (and you would agree) that we've really got too terribly far yet. (my main area of interest is NMR technique design for biomolecules) As for your example, if you already made one succesful oh, say, kinase, you would use that same domain over and over. (which is what we see in nature). Unless you like masochism, you wouldn't make a different protein for each organism that made the same thing.
Quote:
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.
I would agree with you quite a bit. Dawkins (or is it Gould?) began to espouse the panspermia theory quite a bit. As I posted before, if someone could somehow convince me that the single cell came about by chance (which is getting more and more remote the further I get in my field), the step from single-celled to multi-cellular would be paltry by comparison.
Quote:
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?
He's more than just that. Based upon what I observe every day in my life and work, he appears to me to be scientist, engineer, and artist.
Quote:
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.
Even good diet and exercise can't save you from amassing genetic defects though. Look at Mr. Armstrong. Less than 50 years ago he would have been a dead man.
Quote:
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.
I agree. However, the very long lifespans started to decline dramatically after the flood, and very quickly stabilized on what we would consider a "normal" lifetime (a bit shorter, actually, because of the obvious medical concerns). Protective water canopy?
Quote:
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.
Yes, but based upon my earlier statements, where are you going to find a nice little isolated place with a high concentration of the pre-biotic materials, all free from the ravages of environmental chemistry? Getting a system capable of generating all of these molecules themselves, even in conditions like you state, is not likely at all. (and that's an understatement)
Quote:
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).
All methods of making nucleotides occur in already-living objects. Of course, it's possible I missed something. If you have a mechanism where life (or the critical enzymes from life) isn't/aren't needed for this, I'd like to hear about it.
Quote:
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.
Acutally, most enzymes become denatured even when you go a little bit above 37C. And also, it's not just the sterility of the solution at question. I doubt you could say that the original "prebiotic" soup was made of distilled, deionized water with just the critical amino acids/nucleotides. (and your crystal, of course)
Quote:
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.
See above, also many metal-containing proteins can have the metals titrated out of them via mass action. (Had a real pain of a protein I had to work with that had that problem).
Quote:
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.
I was referring to the activation energy as a thermodynamic barrier. These are overcome by either enzymes, or heat (which cells can't utilize too well).
Hardeehar, I appreciate our discourse. I'm glad your're actually reading my material, and responding to it in kind. I hope that we can continue this fairly civil discussion, and that *ahem* certain others can take a hint and do as well. Thanks.
Other than the dinosaur tracks, MarcUK and Hassan i Sabbah are up to their old tricks of not reading my posts and then posting ignorantly. For those that want to make their own conclusions about the dinosaur tracks, go to this link.
[snip] irrelavent to the theory of evolution
Hardeehar, I appreciate our discourse. I'm glad your're actually reading my material, and responding to it in kind. I hope that we can continue this fairly civil discussion, and that *ahem* certain others can take a hint and do as well. Thanks.
Look, even one of the largest Creationist websites, "Answers in Genesis" is telling you not to use the paluxy tracks as evidence of humans existing with dinosaurs, under the heading of "Arguments Creationists SHOULD NOT use" yet you're still linking to paluxy tracks and claiming Hassan and I are up to tricks. Your movement gave up on paluxy tracks long ago. Give it up. They're not real.
Tell me why that page even exists at Answers in Genesis? Is it because Creationists have a long history of pulling 'facts' out of their ass that eventually get so refuted by the science, that they make themselves look like total idiots? I thought Jesus was supposed to walk with you every day. Why does he let Creationists - who are of course, doing his bidding, set themselves up for a complete ribbing?
I think you owe it to everyone here, if you want to interfere with peoples lives and beliefs, to atleast have 100% proof that the information you cite is the truth and credible. I've asked you to ask GOD if the evidence you post is the truth. If God is telling you paluxy tracks are real evidence of genesis theory, that is proof enough that it is not God you are talking too.
And your canopy theory, too has been so refuted by science and mathematics, that to actually hear someone using this model to explain - in 2004, how genesis occured is...well frankly there are not the words.
You aren't doing yourself any favours, You've been pulled on Paluxy, the Vapour Canopy model went out light-years ago, and you tripped over your own strawmandefinition of 'information' admitting macroevolution is not a problem and proved you dont even understand the theory of evolution when you claimed that "every new gene ever created was a product of Macroevolution".
Thats 4 fundamental deceptions, why should I believe anything you post, when you are still posting lies that have been known for years?
I cant promise that we got here exactly as evolution suggests, but I dont have to use lies and deceptions to make my case, I may not understand all of the evidence I read, and might make mistakes in presenting it, but I do not intentionally lie and deceive in order to make my case.
I only want to show that the "Theory of Evolution" is correct in the remit it adresses, regardless of wether God or naturalistic processes started the process off. I think we both know it is.
I've been doing both actually. I've been stating over and over again the design quite evident in biological systems, and also attacking the naturalistic notion that it came about by chance.
To my eyes, all you've done is misrepresent science and have provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertions. As is typical of all of these sorts of threads, it's always we who have to go about providing evidence in the midst of a minefield of fantastical assertions.
You said that no evidence of science will change your mine. You believe in the Bible and what it says. Why bother going around discussing this? It's a gigantic waste of time for all of us.
Quote:
Only one supportable inconsistency is enough to prove a theory is incorrect. Why do you think I've been hammering thermodynamics so much?
You have been hammering on thermodynamics because that is the typical talking point for creationists. Evolution is consistent with all of our known theories in science. Everyone has already told you that evolution is consistent with thermodynamics. You simply choose not to accept it.
Quote:
As for my A vs B statement, you provide me with a third possibility for the generation of life. And don't give me panspermia (even though we spend billions of dollars flying junk to mars), because that just puts the onus on another planet.
As we all know, there are only hypotheses for abiogenesis. Lots of them. This is one:
a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells.
...
All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life's most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. ... The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. ...
The transition from independent molecular entities to cellular structures with integrated behaviors was a crucial aspect of the origin of life. We show that simple physical principles can mediate a coordinated interaction between genome and compartment boundary, independent of any genomic functions beyond selfreplication. RNA, encapsulated in fatty acid vesicles, exerts an osmotic pressure on the vesicle membrane that drives the uptake of additional membrane components, leading to membrane growth at the expense of relaxed vesicles, which shrink. Thus, more efficient RNA replication could cause faster cell growth, leading to the emergence of Darwinian evolution at the cellular level.
...
Our results show that osmotically swollen fatty acid vesicles can grow at the expense of relaxed (isotonic) vesicles. We have attempted to model the behavior of a primitive cell in which an RNA genome encodes functional RNA, but the same principles would apply given any other charged genetic polymer. In contrast, a neutral polymer such as PNA (peptide nucleic acid), having no associated counterions, would be a much less effective osmolyte, a difference that may have influenced the natural selection of the genetic material itself. We suggest that the phenomenon of osmotically driven, competitive vesicle growth could have played an important role in the emergence of Darwinian evolution during the origin of cellular life (supporting online text). The present results suggest that simple physical principles may allow a direct connection between genome and membrane. RNA replicating within vesicles could confer a substantial growth advantage to the membrane by creating internal osmotic pressure. The faster replication of a superior replicase would therefore lead to faster vesicle growth, at the expense of cells lacking RNA or containing less efficient replicases. A faster replicase genotype would thus produce the higher-level phenotype of faster cellular growth, a prerequisite of cellular replication (supporting online text). Darwinian evolution at the organismal level might therefore have emerged earlier than previously thought?at the level of a one-gene cell.
So I gather that this website declares anyone believing in a billions of years old universe as an evolutionist? So anyone in any field be it physics to math who does not believe in creationism is an evolutionist. Ok. That cleared that up.
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence?the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars?the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
...[lots of comments on debating]...
Ultimately, God?s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4?5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ?For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.?
Also, Isaiah 55:11: ?So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.?
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God?s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
...
When someone tells me they want ?proof? or ?evidence?, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
?You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I?m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.?
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
So Answers in Genesis gives no data or evidence to a question asking for the best proof for creationism, except to say that we all have the same facts, but just interpreted differently. Only asserts that the Bible says God did it, and it is the only way to interpret it. Quote mining and selectiving thinking at its best, and not to mention no original work either.
Loved the answer for the age of the Sun: "Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun. Classic.
This discussion is ultimately futile. I don't believe we will convince Elihu that his chosen interpretation is false -- he is standing on the weak argument that because it is very unlikely that something occurred means it didn't occur, this isn't going to change. I should comment on two things that he wrote in his nice response to me: lipid membranes only prevent charged species from crossing (and even this is a weak selection); the most prevalent element in space is hydrogen, meaning that on the balance the universe is a very reducing environment, and that earth is an aberration. Aberrations only exist because of history, and in this case the natural history of the planet. I should also note that radical reactions almost never occur in reducing conditions -- all of the radical scavengers that I know of are reductants of some form or another. This special property of hydrogen therefore makes the number of degradation reactions possible for the pre-biotic soup to be minimal. THT's posted theories provide answers to all of benzene's other questions. Do I believe them, maybe, but all that us non-creationist have to do is prove that there are possibilities...
I do have a question for Elihu, when we discover life on other planets, perhaps in other solar systems, perhaps on mars, how will your view of this new data fit in with your theory? No amount of tweaking in genesis will allow you to explain multiple establishments of life. Of course, the way the planet is going, we may all be dead before humanity finds evidence of life on other planets.
I'm staying pretty much out of this thread since a lot of it is outside my field of discussion.
But Hardee's juvenile attitude is hard to take, even from a bystander.
The guy came in, chose a screen name and has spoken honestly as to how he sees the issue. Hardee's inner cyberstalker took hold and then not only childishly publicized his name, he seems to be trying to invoke some sort of "we know who you are" response. You must quietly think your position is truly weak to have to resort to such nonsense.
The guy chose a screen name, like we all did. Use it. It's disheartening that a mod or even one of his like-minded posters haven't told him to grow up and act like an AppleInsider.
This is dumb. We all know Trumptman is Nick, Applenut is Eric, Scott is well, um... Scott... so what's the problem with Elihu? Do you see something in his name that I don't?
The difference is that he chose to be called Benzene. And he didn't include his real name at the end like Nick does. At the very least, we can respect the identities people choose for themselves on this board.
Better squeeze this one in before work starts up again...
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Look, even one of the largest Creationist websites, "Answers in Genesis" is telling you not to use the paluxy tracks as evidence of humans existing with dinosaurs, under the heading of "Arguments Creationists SHOULD NOT use" yet you're still linking to paluxy tracks and claiming Hassan and I are up to tricks. Your movement gave up on paluxy tracks long ago. Give it up. They're not real.
How interesting. First you harangue me for being in the rank and file of creationists, with my brain turned off, just spouting what I've heard from somebody else, and then you ridicule me from differing with them.
Fact of the matter is, if you look at the (very obviously) footprints, it's awfully difficult to sell them as eroded dinosaur tracks. For those who still don't believe me, here's a link.
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
You said that no evidence of science will change your mine
I never did. Go through the five pages and check for yourself. As a matter of fact (from page 1):
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Although at times I still hold to some dogmatic statements, I am a scientist foremost, and a creationist second. My views on origins are not going to be swayed either way by any single find. I have read some very hairy journal articles on theories of biochemical evolution (I try to stick to the stuff I know), and their conclusions, although enlightening, are not persuasive (or are they meant to be). I have also read many articles about creationistic theories that are likewise far from the conclusive evidence needed.
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Evolution is consistent with all of our known theories in science. Everyone has already told you that evolution is consistent with thermodynamics. You simply choose not to accept it.
All known theories in science, huh? You don't get out much do you. If everybody told me that taking LSD was a great thing, I still wouldn't do it. You need to convince me, not convert me by mass action. BTW, no one here (or any of the very qualified people I've talked to), has been able to explain how nature got over the "thermodynamic problem".
Quote:
The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes.
First of all, all they're trying to explain is inital encapsulation. A: it hasn't been observed, only postulated, and B: going from a solid iron sulfide crystal to a lipid bilayer is hardly trivial.
Quote:
We show that simple physical principles can mediate a coordinated interaction between genome and compartment boundary, independent of any genomic functions beyond selfreplication...
I wouldn't expect you to know this, but basically what they're saying is that this would explain why genetic material (like RNA and DNA) is charged. (e.g. it enhances osmotic pressure). It's the same thing as above, but now we've magically got lipid bilayers, and we've somehow managed to generate a whole complement of catalytic (in this case, nucleic acids) to store in them.
BTW, the page of links you referred to as "supporting evidence" are just run-of-the-mill papers. (most don't even apply to evolution)
All evolutionary mechanism papers are very narrow in scope, and only apply in a very specific manner and in a very contrived environment. (and those are the easy questions) They also leave a lot more questions than answers. (Like my "and then a wing developed" analogy.) Nothing is simple. You fool yourself if you think it is on any level, whether it be biology, chemistry, or physics. (e.g. ecology -> behaviour -> organisms -> cells -> nolecules -> atoms -> subatomic particles -> gluons, mesons, etc).
Ho hum.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardeeharhar
he is standing on the weak argument that because it is very unlikely that something occurred means it didn't occur
No, I'm making a very large jump in reasoning by stating that something that has 1x10^(-200) chance of happening is "impossible". (hearken back to my elvis statement).
Quote:
I do have a question for Elihu, when we discover life on other planets, perhaps in other solar systems, perhaps on mars, how will your view of this new data fit in with your theory? No amount of tweaking in genesis will allow you to explain multiple establishments of life.
Very good question. Excellent question, actually. I don't know, to tell the truth. You correctly state the bible has no supportable statements even coming close to explaining this.
I suppose I'd become an agnostic, or I just wouldn't bother anymore. Maybe panspermia, maybe idealism. That's a tough call. Lots would change though, for sure.
p.s. Don't let frank get you down. I ghosted AI for years before I registered, and even then didn't even post much. If I didn't want people to know my name, I wouldn't have linked to my homepage on my profile either.
Frank, it's cool man. He didn't post my last name, it would be a little difficult to find me anyway with only my first name.
No, I'm making a very large jump in reasoning by stating that something that has 1x10^(-200) chance of happening is "impossible". (hearken back to my elvis statement).
Have you heard of the Anthropic Principle? (Reluctant as I am to wheel it out). If (for the sake of argument) life arises by chance in a particular universe and then became intelligent, it can then theorize about its orgins as we are doing now. On the other hand, if life did not arise, we couldn't be having this argument. We aren't outside observers.
In other words, the low probability doesn't mean very much.
I'm staying pretty much out of this thread since a lot of it is outside my field of discussion.
But Hardee's juvenile attitude is hard to take, even from a bystander.
The guy came in, chose a screen name and has spoken honestly as to how he sees the issue. Hardee's inner cyberstalker took hold and then not only childishly publicized his name, he seems to be trying to invoke some sort of "we know who you are" response. You must quietly think your position is truly weak to have to resort to such nonsense.
The guy chose a screen name, like we all did. Use it. It's disheartening that a mod or even one of his like-minded posters haven't told him to grow up and act like an AppleInsider.
Chill Frank. I am Bruce, nice to meet you.
My identity isn't rapped up in my birth name nor the two names I have had here. I honestly wanted to see if benzene was a biophysicist -- we are so rare in the world, it was my curiosity not my cyber-stalker mode. And by calling him by his first name, I indicated my interest and the small pursuit I did to discover more about him.
After all, given the small field in which he and I float, we are bound to meet each other at some point in real life -- we might as well have a working relationship from the get go, no?
In any event, I am glad to have had this discussion, but alas lab work is calling...
Have you heard of the Anthropic Principle? (Reluctant as I am to wheel it out). If (for the sake of argument) life arises by chance in a particular universe and then became intelligent, it can then theorize about its orgins as we are doing now. On the other hand, if life did not arise, we couldn't be having this argument. We aren't outside observers.
In other words, the low probability doesn't mean very much.
Yeah I read about that for the first time recently in a Time magazine article (it's now pay-only online, but the article was about this book.) It does seem to have a resemblance to an Intelligent Design approach.
I haven't read any of the original sources, but, intuitively, I agree with your assessment. On its surface the anthropic principle just seems like a bad case of "hindsight is 20/20." If we exist, then the conditions for us to exist must have been highly likely, which is highly unlikely! Huh?
It's like flipping a coin 10 times, getting TTHHTTHTHH, and then saying the odds of getting that particular sequence was so low that it couldn't have just been random chance.
I never did. Go through the five pages and check for yourself. As a matter of fact (from page 1)
My comment is from this: My views on origins are not going to be swayed either way by any single find. Your views are apparently a strong YEC view, and it seems you are not swayed in anyway. Seeing that Creationism has an ultimate fall back, I don't see how an infinite amount of evidence will convince you.
Quote:
BTW, no one here (or any of the very qualified people I've talked to), has been able to explain how nature got over the "thermodynamic problem".
Hardeeharhar is better at explaining it in the biomolecular way you want. I don't have any problem with it. The Sun and the Earth give off energy in various forms. That energy is used by macromolecules to convert itself into larger forms with heat and other compounds as byproducts.
Quote:
All evolutionary mechanism papers are very narrow in scope, and only apply in a very specific manner and in a very contrived environment. (and those are the easy questions) They also leave a lot more questions than answers. (Like my "and then a wing developed" analogy.)
It's a hypothesis. It's at a stage where there isn't hard supporting evidence. You asked for some proposals, I gave you a couple. In time, the proper mechanics will be proposed, cellular life will be created in the lab, and the conditions for early Earth verified. If one hypothesis fails, then a new one will take its place and the cycle of proving it begins again.
BTW, no one here (or any of the very qualified people I've talked to), has been able to explain how nature got over the "thermodynamic problem".
How does one explain how a non-existent problem was surmounted?
Now, I realize you have your own "special" meanings for words like "information" and "complexity", and that you try to relate those meanings to the thermodynamic concept of entropy, but none of that has a thing to do with whether or not evolution violates thermodynamics or not.
The Earth is not a closed system.
Processes on Earth use the influx of solar energy, and stored energy from the formation of the Earth, to locally create more ordered systems, and waste heat.
That waste heat is eventually dumped into space.
Local order increases, local entropy decreases.
Overall order in the universe decreases, entropy increases.
That's it. No violation of thermodynamics. If you think the initial processes needed to use energy to create local order are something special that can't happen by chance, then fine, prove it. If you think there are special theromdynamic barriers to certain kinds of self-organizing behavior, then prove it.
But simply acting as if the known evidence that supports thermodynamics also supports your own ideas is bunk. Spinning a lot of excess verbiage around nothing more than a core concept of "That just seems to complicated to happen by chance!" isn't how you make a successful argument based on thermodynamics.
Excellent, have been looking for a good thread on this topic to read up on. Although having run through five pages, my brain hurts a tad.
(that said, i've been lurking on the G5 thread on Ars's machach that now runs to 133 pages, and is in its second iteration. brainpain extremis)
Have been enjoying the debate from both sides. Evolution is undoubedly a fascinating topic, as are the arguments that propose that God 'created' everything, or designed it intelligently. Have never met a creatonist; in fact, in London, almost never meet anyone religious at all.
So, don't want to get into arguments as yet, just want to throw a few thoughts and queries around and to find out some background. Sorry if I've missed discussion on some of these points already.
Creationism: so, am I right in thinking that this proposes that the Earth was created 10 000 years ago (or 4k, in some other views). Don't understand how this figure came about. Had heard that someone had added up all the generations in the Bible and worked it out that way.
Now, dinosaurs come up a lot. But if the Earth is only 10 000 years old , does this mean that all fossils, such as trilobites (which are marvellous, and I wish there were still some around for us to play with) have been 'planted' when the Earth was built?
if so, why?
What is intelligent design - don't get this at all
Now, it's entirely possible that God exists. Haven't seen any evidence to say that he, she or it doesn't. Equally, I have seen no evidence that he, she or it exists at all. Now, given that, as I understand it, God is meant to be some kind of 'all powerful' being, what form might he, she or it take? A pan-galactic megabeing of awesome power? A 'force' of some kind?
A sidepoint - someone mentioned that Jesus didn't exist. I'd heard that Roman historians had written about Jesus, saying something like he was a prophet who was stirring up trouble in Palestine. Any data you've come across that can confirm or refute this?
And another side issue that's not really relevant - what's in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Discovered in the 1950s I think, but what do they say? How do they relate the writings of the Old or New Testament? Are they controversial (perhaps why we don't hear much about them) or boring?
Hang loose
G
-----------
Now playing: Duke Pearson and friends on KKJZ quicktime radio
Creationism: so, am I right in thinking that this proposes that the Earth was created 10 000 years ago (or 4k, in some other views). Don't understand how this figure came about. Had heard that someone had added up all the generations in the Bible and worked it out that way.
There are both "Young Earth" creationists and creationists who will go along with the idea of a very old planet, although I don't think either consider mankind to be more than 10,000 years old. And yes, as far as I know, figures in the ballpark of ~10,000 years come from counting all of those "begats".
Quote:
Now, dinosaurs come up a lot. But if the Earth is only 10 000 years old , does this mean that all fossils, such as trilobites (which are marvellous, and I wish there were still some around for us to play with) have been 'planted' when the Earth was built?
There are the John Bircher types who claim that all evidence conflicting with creationism was planted by Satan, but for the most part, dinosaurs and trilobytes and the like are all written off as stuff that died in The Flood (getting a pair of triceratops into an ark is hard work!). It requires an amazing amount of hand-waving dismissal of a broad range of dating techniques... but what the heck?
Quote:
What is intelligent design - don't get this at all
Think of this as sort of a tactical retreat from full-blown creationism. First "prove" that living organisms bear supposedly undeniable hallmarks of having been designed by an intelligent designer (which, of course means God, but could be taken to mean gods, plural, or a powerful race of aliens -- never mind how they came to be, or how their complexity arose). Then, having "proven" this, the hard work out of the way, come back later and "prove" the other trivial details of creationism, like how the story of Noah's Ark is *cough* literally true.
What Benzene is providing here is nothing more than a modernized version of the watchmaker argument; a 21st century shell for a 19th century idea.
People who find themselves angry with evolution generally act out of defensiveness; the "evolutionists" are big meanie heads who are rude and smelly and poop-faces. So instead of ignoring the condescension and realizing the facts are solid they invest in inane rhetorical combat and ignore the nose on their face (or the tail above their ass, as it were).
They don't answer directly-asked questions. That is the hallmark of a dishonest person.
The fix that Creationists find themselves in is that they are knowingly or unknowingly, (depending on how smart they are) told that the theory of evolution means that Jesus couldn't exist.
If comes back to Adam. If a literal Adam did not eat the fruit, then no sin was comitted, and there is no need for salvation, that means Jesus didn't exist.
Think of a known fundie, and imagine what a jibbering nervous train-wreck they'd be if they suddenly has proof that Jesus isn't real. I have to listen to work colleges rant on about how they were sinners, on a path to destruction, going nowhere, until they found Jesus. Jesus gives them strength, courage, and will power, sadly it makes them arrogant, judgemental and ignorant, and don't they just love to tell me.
So arguing creation theory with Creationists is rather a pointless exercise really, what you're (unintentionally) doing is actually taking Jesus away from them. This point alone means that whatever facts, evidence and reason you submit, it will automatically be wrong, because they're 100% convinced that Jesus has a personal relationship with them. And conditioned so that anyone who tries to seperate them from Jesus, is a tool of Satan. To them, the whole argument is just a test of Faith by people deceived by Satan.
Its a lost a cause to argue Evolution/Creation with the converted, almost all people would rather believe a lie, than have thier life ripped to shreds and spat out the other side. Unfortunately for them, they are not happy with their beliefs unless they are gobbing thier mouths off and trying to convert everyone - surely a sign of a shaky faith, and I just happen to have been on the receiving end of it on several occasions. It's all good fun
The only contemporary account we have is Josephus.
There were others, we know this because they are mentioned in secondary sources, but guess what ? they were destroyed purposefully by the Church. So we'll never know what they said.
Actually that's not quite true. We may yet find lost MS and we can always refer to the writings of the Gnostics for a flavour of their view of Jesus. The Gnostic were an early Christian sect, predating the Church and whom the Church disliked.
May I ask you, all knowing Seg, If you have read Josephus' accounts. I expect you read the evidence that these were inserted by the Church and known forgeries, what's your take?
I can understand the Church destroying the texts of the pagan religions of the day, but why purposefully destroy accounts of Jesus? Are you making that up?
Are you familiar with the evidence that the Gnostics were actually non-literalists, and actually subscribed to the traditional spiritual astrotheologies, but replaced their sun-gods with Jesus and Christian-esque writings, which is why the Church went all out for them. Your take?
Quote:
It may even be that certain of these lost MS were amalgamated into the Qur'an where the figure of Jesus is an altogether more believable and coherent figure than his contradictory Biblical counterpart.
You go seg! I think you might need to prove the theory of Gravity wrong though, if you want to literally believe Jesus ascended into heaven. Good Luck. Seriously though, I was thinking of reading the qu'ran, are there a myriad of different translation/interpretations like the bible? Which one do you read?
Comments
1. Scientific laws are not mathematical proofs. They are approximations used to describe observations, and they can be and have been wrong, such as with newton's law of universal gravitation.
2. Newsflash: newton's law of gravitation is not "gravity exists." Newton's law is a mathematical description of his theory about the mechanics of gravity, and this 'law' isn't even accurate.
It's really pathetic that you have a bugs bunny understanding of the 'law of gravity.' Your beliefs are clearly a case of the non-scientist being led by the pseudoscientists.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
1) We have detected the (presumably IR) spectral signatures of both nucleotides and amino acids in distant nebulae. They arise spontaneously in space.
I've seen the research that observed nitrogen heterocyclics in space, as well as some of the simpler amino acids. Those are not, however, nucleotides. The are only the bases (and there are a lot more nitrogen heterocyclics than those used in DNA/RNA, as you know). Additionally, they are hardly in the concentrations needed for what you're talking about...but we'll get to that.
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.
That's my point though, you don't have bucket loads of time. Unless you are trying to say that the oceans were one big pool of amino acids and nucleotides all at 100mM (which is laughable in the extreme), you're not going to get anything close to even a measureable turnover from even the most optimized enzyme/inorganic catalyst.
Additionally, there are lots of chemical reactions completely separate from life that can break down your pre-biotic materials. Oxidation immediately springs to mind (some people have postulated O2 didn't exist much early in time), free radical degradation, heat, and a million other organic reactions.
2) Autocatalyzing reactions are only necessary after the first basic components have been created -- in my example, the activated nucleotides.
First of all, I don't know any natural mechanism (other than the ones used by life...obviously) to take a sugar, add a base, and then add three phosphates. So you're all ready in trouble, and you still have the problem with autocatalyzing reactions not having even a fleeting concentration of their substrates to work on.
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.
Well, as you know, catalysts do not change the equilibrium position. So what you're saying is: A perfectly (or near perfectly) optimized crystal (we haven't even got to proteins yet, I'm assuming) happens upon a decent concentration of amino acids and polymerizes them (randomly, of course) into a protein. This happens a whole lot of times, until eventually a functioning protein is made. Now we have a single (functioning) protein. Great, so you just made alcohol dehydrogenase. Now what?
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.
No, I don't agree, and here's why: Other than your last example (which, as you would have to agree, is very rare), making a single substrate from a single enzyme does not help the enzyme to be any more fit. Only when the enzyme is observed in a larger context, and where it's products can help the organism for which it works, does the enzyme make life better for itself. For those out there who don't understand what I've said so far, I'm going to make an analogy:
Say you have a shoemaker. He can make 50 shoes a day. He, however, only needs a single pair of shoes once a year. It does not benefit him to make 50 shoes a day, let alone one, unless there is a market for him.
I know Dr. Behe has been much maligned for his "irreducible complexity", but that's a great example of what's going on here.
Also, what happens if your protein is inactivated by a free radical? Then what? You have to start all over again.
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.
Actually, lipid bilayers are observed in every life form, so I would say that they're probably one of the oldest tenets of life, but I suppose you could make a statement for a protein envelope (a la viruses).
Also, it is quite evident that lipid bilayers are quite a bit more complex than your average grease slick. They must contain transporters, structual proteins, etc.
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.
Oh, I see, you are talking about the RNA world. Ok, that makes things a bit simpler. Well, other than the fact that little more than self-excising RNAs have been observed operating in a catalytic function, you can make the leap (as some have done) that they were the first enzymes. As well as lipid bilayers being synthesized, you are being somewhat disingenuous when you say that they are generated by a single catalyst. If I remember correctly, there's more like 12 or so.
Also, as we both know, lipids and their related precursor molecules will form bilayers spontaneously.
Yes, but usually not structually useful ones, and they definitely still need ways to transport materials across the membrane.
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).
Agreed, but if you get a lipid bilayer too soon, you're screwed. You need to have all of your ducks in a row before you enclose your machinery, otherwise you've done the cellular equivalent of suffocating yourself. How a pre-cell managed to corral everything it needed from randomly floating active enzymes (of which the probability of creating is slim enough), into a enclosed space is truely an exercise of the imagination.
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.
For even this very simple step you are forced to constrain the supposed inital environment in a very unlikely setup.
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.
I'm glad we agree about that. Although, it would be really cool to find a mechanism capable of doing that (I can't think of why a cell would ever need to). Talk about nobels for everybody (I'll share it with you!).
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.
But that's different that the reverse-reverse transcriptase that we were talking about earlier. This is much more plausible, at least from a probability POV, but still, you're making the jump from a single catalytic RNA construct to a functioning "system". Making one enzyme is a big enough jump. Making more than one in the same vicinity and time and having them come together is...impossible.
And a note to the non-math people out there. It's possible that Elvis is still alive. Heck, it'd be possible for him to be living a hundred years from now, if only he reached some eastern shaman during his post-faked death (and subsequent coverup) that taught him the keys for long life.
However, is it plausible? Hardly.
Also, a note to MarcUK and Hassan, if they post my elvis thing out of context to "prove" I'm a moron, you really are pathetic.
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.
Yeah, if I was a naturalist, I'd probably go with the RNA world thing myself, however, making the jump from a self-excising polynucleic acid to a repeatable enzymatic construct is a rather large one.
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...
I looked at protein design a bit as a possible thesis, but I don't think (and you would agree) that we've really got too terribly far yet. (my main area of interest is NMR technique design for biomolecules) As for your example, if you already made one succesful oh, say, kinase, you would use that same domain over and over. (which is what we see in nature). Unless you like masochism, you wouldn't make a different protein for each organism that made the same thing.
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.
I would agree with you quite a bit. Dawkins (or is it Gould?) began to espouse the panspermia theory quite a bit. As I posted before, if someone could somehow convince me that the single cell came about by chance (which is getting more and more remote the further I get in my field), the step from single-celled to multi-cellular would be paltry by comparison.
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?
He's more than just that. Based upon what I observe every day in my life and work, he appears to me to be scientist, engineer, and artist.
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.
Even good diet and exercise can't save you from amassing genetic defects though. Look at Mr. Armstrong. Less than 50 years ago he would have been a dead man.
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.
I agree. However, the very long lifespans started to decline dramatically after the flood, and very quickly stabilized on what we would consider a "normal" lifetime (a bit shorter, actually, because of the obvious medical concerns). Protective water canopy?
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.
Yes, but based upon my earlier statements, where are you going to find a nice little isolated place with a high concentration of the pre-biotic materials, all free from the ravages of environmental chemistry? Getting a system capable of generating all of these molecules themselves, even in conditions like you state, is not likely at all. (and that's an understatement)
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).
All methods of making nucleotides occur in already-living objects. Of course, it's possible I missed something. If you have a mechanism where life (or the critical enzymes from life) isn't/aren't needed for this, I'd like to hear about it.
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.
Acutally, most enzymes become denatured even when you go a little bit above 37C. And also, it's not just the sterility of the solution at question. I doubt you could say that the original "prebiotic" soup was made of distilled, deionized water with just the critical amino acids/nucleotides. (and your crystal, of course)
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.
See above, also many metal-containing proteins can have the metals titrated out of them via mass action. (Had a real pain of a protein I had to work with that had that problem).
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.
I was referring to the activation energy as a thermodynamic barrier. These are overcome by either enzymes, or heat (which cells can't utilize too well).
Hardeehar, I appreciate our discourse. I'm glad your're actually reading my material, and responding to it in kind. I hope that we can continue this fairly civil discussion, and that *ahem* certain others can take a hint and do as well. Thanks.
Originally posted by benzene
Other than the dinosaur tracks, MarcUK and Hassan i Sabbah are up to their old tricks of not reading my posts and then posting ignorantly. For those that want to make their own conclusions about the dinosaur tracks, go to this link.
[snip] irrelavent to the theory of evolution
Hardeehar, I appreciate our discourse. I'm glad your're actually reading my material, and responding to it in kind. I hope that we can continue this fairly civil discussion, and that *ahem* certain others can take a hint and do as well. Thanks.
Look, even one of the largest Creationist websites, "Answers in Genesis" is telling you not to use the paluxy tracks as evidence of humans existing with dinosaurs, under the heading of "Arguments Creationists SHOULD NOT use" yet you're still linking to paluxy tracks and claiming Hassan and I are up to tricks. Your movement gave up on paluxy tracks long ago. Give it up. They're not real.
Tell me why that page even exists at Answers in Genesis? Is it because Creationists have a long history of pulling 'facts' out of their ass that eventually get so refuted by the science, that they make themselves look like total idiots? I thought Jesus was supposed to walk with you every day. Why does he let Creationists - who are of course, doing his bidding, set themselves up for a complete ribbing?
I think you owe it to everyone here, if you want to interfere with peoples lives and beliefs, to atleast have 100% proof that the information you cite is the truth and credible. I've asked you to ask GOD if the evidence you post is the truth. If God is telling you paluxy tracks are real evidence of genesis theory, that is proof enough that it is not God you are talking too.
And your canopy theory, too has been so refuted by science and mathematics, that to actually hear someone using this model to explain - in 2004, how genesis occured is...well frankly there are not the words.
You aren't doing yourself any favours, You've been pulled on Paluxy, the Vapour Canopy model went out light-years ago, and you tripped over your own strawmandefinition of 'information' admitting macroevolution is not a problem and proved you dont even understand the theory of evolution when you claimed that "every new gene ever created was a product of Macroevolution".
Thats 4 fundamental deceptions, why should I believe anything you post, when you are still posting lies that have been known for years?
I cant promise that we got here exactly as evolution suggests, but I dont have to use lies and deceptions to make my case, I may not understand all of the evidence I read, and might make mistakes in presenting it, but I do not intentionally lie and deceive in order to make my case.
I only want to show that the "Theory of Evolution" is correct in the remit it adresses, regardless of wether God or naturalistic processes started the process off. I think we both know it is.
Originally posted by benzene
I've been doing both actually. I've been stating over and over again the design quite evident in biological systems, and also attacking the naturalistic notion that it came about by chance.
To my eyes, all you've done is misrepresent science and have provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertions. As is typical of all of these sorts of threads, it's always we who have to go about providing evidence in the midst of a minefield of fantastical assertions.
You said that no evidence of science will change your mine. You believe in the Bible and what it says. Why bother going around discussing this? It's a gigantic waste of time for all of us.
Only one supportable inconsistency is enough to prove a theory is incorrect. Why do you think I've been hammering thermodynamics so much?
You have been hammering on thermodynamics because that is the typical talking point for creationists. Evolution is consistent with all of our known theories in science. Everyone has already told you that evolution is consistent with thermodynamics. You simply choose not to accept it.
As for my A vs B statement, you provide me with a third possibility for the generation of life. And don't give me panspermia (even though we spend billions of dollars flying junk to mars), because that just puts the onus on another planet.
As we all know, there are only hypotheses for abiogenesis. Lots of them. This is one:
On the origins of cells
a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells.
...
All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life's most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. ... The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. ...
Here is another:
The Emergence of Competition Between Model Protocells
The transition from independent molecular entities to cellular structures with integrated behaviors was a crucial aspect of the origin of life. We show that simple physical principles can mediate a coordinated interaction between genome and compartment boundary, independent of any genomic functions beyond selfreplication. RNA, encapsulated in fatty acid vesicles, exerts an osmotic pressure on the vesicle membrane that drives the uptake of additional membrane components, leading to membrane growth at the expense of relaxed vesicles, which shrink. Thus, more efficient RNA replication could cause faster cell growth, leading to the emergence of Darwinian evolution at the cellular level.
...
Our results show that osmotically swollen fatty acid vesicles can grow at the expense of relaxed (isotonic) vesicles. We have attempted to model the behavior of a primitive cell in which an RNA genome encodes functional RNA, but the same principles would apply given any other charged genetic polymer. In contrast, a neutral polymer such as PNA (peptide nucleic acid), having no associated counterions, would be a much less effective osmolyte, a difference that may have influenced the natural selection of the genetic material itself. We suggest that the phenomenon of osmotically driven, competitive vesicle growth could have played an important role in the emergence of Darwinian evolution during the origin of cellular life (supporting online text). The present results suggest that simple physical principles may allow a direct connection between genome and membrane. RNA replicating within vesicles could confer a substantial growth advantage to the membrane by creating internal osmotic pressure. The faster replication of a superior replicase would therefore lead to faster vesicle growth, at the expense of cells lacking RNA or containing less efficient replicases. A faster replicase genotype would thus produce the higher-level phenotype of faster cellular growth, a prerequisite of cellular replication (supporting online text). Darwinian evolution at the organismal level might therefore have emerged earlier than previously thought?at the level of a one-gene cell.
Lots of supporting information in their papers.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
So I gather that this website declares anyone believing in a billions of years old universe as an evolutionist? So anyone in any field be it physics to math who does not believe in creationism is an evolutionist. Ok. That cleared that up.
The website provided the following answer to the question: What is the best proof for creation?:
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence?the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars?the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
...[lots of comments on debating]...
Ultimately, God?s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4?5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ?For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.?
Also, Isaiah 55:11: ?So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.?
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God?s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
...
When someone tells me they want ?proof? or ?evidence?, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
?You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I?m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.?
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
So Answers in Genesis gives no data or evidence to a question asking for the best proof for creationism, except to say that we all have the same facts, but just interpreted differently. Only asserts that the Bible says God did it, and it is the only way to interpret it. Quote mining and selectiving thinking at its best, and not to mention no original work either.
Loved the answer for the age of the Sun: "Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun. Classic.
I do have a question for Elihu, when we discover life on other planets, perhaps in other solar systems, perhaps on mars, how will your view of this new data fit in with your theory? No amount of tweaking in genesis will allow you to explain multiple establishments of life. Of course, the way the planet is going, we may all be dead before humanity finds evidence of life on other planets.
But Hardee's juvenile attitude is hard to take, even from a bystander.
The guy came in, chose a screen name and has spoken honestly as to how he sees the issue. Hardee's inner cyberstalker took hold and then not only childishly publicized his name, he seems to be trying to invoke some sort of "we know who you are" response. You must quietly think your position is truly weak to have to resort to such nonsense.
The guy chose a screen name, like we all did. Use it. It's disheartening that a mod or even one of his like-minded posters haven't told him to grow up and act like an AppleInsider.
Originally posted by Frank777
...grow up and act like an AppleInsider.
Originally posted by tonton
This is dumb. We all know Trumptman is Nick, Applenut is Eric, Scott is well, um... Scott... so what's the problem with Elihu? Do you see something in his name that I don't?
The difference is that he chose to be called Benzene. And he didn't include his real name at the end like Nick does. At the very least, we can respect the identities people choose for themselves on this board.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Look, even one of the largest Creationist websites, "Answers in Genesis" is telling you not to use the paluxy tracks as evidence of humans existing with dinosaurs, under the heading of "Arguments Creationists SHOULD NOT use" yet you're still linking to paluxy tracks and claiming Hassan and I are up to tricks. Your movement gave up on paluxy tracks long ago. Give it up. They're not real.
How interesting. First you harangue me for being in the rank and file of creationists, with my brain turned off, just spouting what I've heard from somebody else, and then you ridicule me from differing with them.
Fact of the matter is, if you look at the (very obviously) footprints, it's awfully difficult to sell them as eroded dinosaur tracks. For those who still don't believe me, here's a link.
Originally posted by THT
You said that no evidence of science will change your mine
I never did. Go through the five pages and check for yourself. As a matter of fact (from page 1):
Originally posted by benzene
Although at times I still hold to some dogmatic statements, I am a scientist foremost, and a creationist second. My views on origins are not going to be swayed either way by any single find. I have read some very hairy journal articles on theories of biochemical evolution (I try to stick to the stuff I know), and their conclusions, although enlightening, are not persuasive (or are they meant to be). I have also read many articles about creationistic theories that are likewise far from the conclusive evidence needed.
Originally posted by THT
Evolution is consistent with all of our known theories in science. Everyone has already told you that evolution is consistent with thermodynamics. You simply choose not to accept it.
All known theories in science, huh? You don't get out much do you. If everybody told me that taking LSD was a great thing, I still wouldn't do it. You need to convince me, not convert me by mass action. BTW, no one here (or any of the very qualified people I've talked to), has been able to explain how nature got over the "thermodynamic problem".
The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes.
First of all, all they're trying to explain is inital encapsulation. A: it hasn't been observed, only postulated, and B: going from a solid iron sulfide crystal to a lipid bilayer is hardly trivial.
We show that simple physical principles can mediate a coordinated interaction between genome and compartment boundary, independent of any genomic functions beyond selfreplication...
I wouldn't expect you to know this, but basically what they're saying is that this would explain why genetic material (like RNA and DNA) is charged. (e.g. it enhances osmotic pressure). It's the same thing as above, but now we've magically got lipid bilayers, and we've somehow managed to generate a whole complement of catalytic (in this case, nucleic acids) to store in them.
BTW, the page of links you referred to as "supporting evidence" are just run-of-the-mill papers. (most don't even apply to evolution)
All evolutionary mechanism papers are very narrow in scope, and only apply in a very specific manner and in a very contrived environment. (and those are the easy questions) They also leave a lot more questions than answers. (Like my "and then a wing developed" analogy.) Nothing is simple. You fool yourself if you think it is on any level, whether it be biology, chemistry, or physics. (e.g. ecology -> behaviour -> organisms -> cells -> nolecules -> atoms -> subatomic particles -> gluons, mesons, etc).
Ho hum.
Originally posted by Hardeeharhar
he is standing on the weak argument that because it is very unlikely that something occurred means it didn't occur
No, I'm making a very large jump in reasoning by stating that something that has 1x10^(-200) chance of happening is "impossible". (hearken back to my elvis statement).
I do have a question for Elihu, when we discover life on other planets, perhaps in other solar systems, perhaps on mars, how will your view of this new data fit in with your theory? No amount of tweaking in genesis will allow you to explain multiple establishments of life.
Very good question. Excellent question, actually. I don't know, to tell the truth. You correctly state the bible has no supportable statements even coming close to explaining this.
I suppose I'd become an agnostic, or I just wouldn't bother anymore. Maybe panspermia, maybe idealism. That's a tough call. Lots would change though, for sure.
p.s. Don't let frank get you down. I ghosted AI for years before I registered, and even then didn't even post much. If I didn't want people to know my name, I wouldn't have linked to my homepage on my profile either.
Frank, it's cool man. He didn't post my last name, it would be a little difficult to find me anyway with only my first name.
Benzene. I've made some points in my last two or three posts which you haven't addressed; could you put your mind to it today some time, old chap?
That'd be fantastic.
No, I'm making a very large jump in reasoning by stating that something that has 1x10^(-200) chance of happening is "impossible". (hearken back to my elvis statement).
Have you heard of the Anthropic Principle? (Reluctant as I am to wheel it out). If (for the sake of argument) life arises by chance in a particular universe and then became intelligent, it can then theorize about its orgins as we are doing now. On the other hand, if life did not arise, we couldn't be having this argument. We aren't outside observers.
In other words, the low probability doesn't mean very much.
Originally posted by Frank777
I'm staying pretty much out of this thread since a lot of it is outside my field of discussion.
But Hardee's juvenile attitude is hard to take, even from a bystander.
The guy came in, chose a screen name and has spoken honestly as to how he sees the issue. Hardee's inner cyberstalker took hold and then not only childishly publicized his name, he seems to be trying to invoke some sort of "we know who you are" response. You must quietly think your position is truly weak to have to resort to such nonsense.
The guy chose a screen name, like we all did. Use it. It's disheartening that a mod or even one of his like-minded posters haven't told him to grow up and act like an AppleInsider.
Chill Frank. I am Bruce, nice to meet you.
My identity isn't rapped up in my birth name nor the two names I have had here. I honestly wanted to see if benzene was a biophysicist -- we are so rare in the world, it was my curiosity not my cyber-stalker mode. And by calling him by his first name, I indicated my interest and the small pursuit I did to discover more about him.
After all, given the small field in which he and I float, we are bound to meet each other at some point in real life -- we might as well have a working relationship from the get go, no?
In any event, I am glad to have had this discussion, but alas lab work is calling...
Originally posted by Stoo
Have you heard of the Anthropic Principle? (Reluctant as I am to wheel it out). If (for the sake of argument) life arises by chance in a particular universe and then became intelligent, it can then theorize about its orgins as we are doing now. On the other hand, if life did not arise, we couldn't be having this argument. We aren't outside observers.
In other words, the low probability doesn't mean very much.
Yeah I read about that for the first time recently in a Time magazine article (it's now pay-only online, but the article was about this book.) It does seem to have a resemblance to an Intelligent Design approach.
I haven't read any of the original sources, but, intuitively, I agree with your assessment. On its surface the anthropic principle just seems like a bad case of "hindsight is 20/20." If we exist, then the conditions for us to exist must have been highly likely, which is highly unlikely! Huh?
It's like flipping a coin 10 times, getting TTHHTTHTHH, and then saying the odds of getting that particular sequence was so low that it couldn't have just been random chance.
Originally posted by benzene
I never did. Go through the five pages and check for yourself. As a matter of fact (from page 1)
My comment is from this: My views on origins are not going to be swayed either way by any single find. Your views are apparently a strong YEC view, and it seems you are not swayed in anyway. Seeing that Creationism has an ultimate fall back, I don't see how an infinite amount of evidence will convince you.
BTW, no one here (or any of the very qualified people I've talked to), has been able to explain how nature got over the "thermodynamic problem".
Hardeeharhar is better at explaining it in the biomolecular way you want. I don't have any problem with it. The Sun and the Earth give off energy in various forms. That energy is used by macromolecules to convert itself into larger forms with heat and other compounds as byproducts.
All evolutionary mechanism papers are very narrow in scope, and only apply in a very specific manner and in a very contrived environment. (and those are the easy questions) They also leave a lot more questions than answers. (Like my "and then a wing developed" analogy.)
It's a hypothesis. It's at a stage where there isn't hard supporting evidence. You asked for some proposals, I gave you a couple. In time, the proper mechanics will be proposed, cellular life will be created in the lab, and the conditions for early Earth verified. If one hypothesis fails, then a new one will take its place and the cycle of proving it begins again.
Originally posted by benzene
BTW, no one here (or any of the very qualified people I've talked to), has been able to explain how nature got over the "thermodynamic problem".
How does one explain how a non-existent problem was surmounted?
Now, I realize you have your own "special" meanings for words like "information" and "complexity", and that you try to relate those meanings to the thermodynamic concept of entropy, but none of that has a thing to do with whether or not evolution violates thermodynamics or not.
The Earth is not a closed system.
Processes on Earth use the influx of solar energy, and stored energy from the formation of the Earth, to locally create more ordered systems, and waste heat.
That waste heat is eventually dumped into space.
Local order increases, local entropy decreases.
Overall order in the universe decreases, entropy increases.
That's it. No violation of thermodynamics. If you think the initial processes needed to use energy to create local order are something special that can't happen by chance, then fine, prove it. If you think there are special theromdynamic barriers to certain kinds of self-organizing behavior, then prove it.
But simply acting as if the known evidence that supports thermodynamics also supports your own ideas is bunk. Spinning a lot of excess verbiage around nothing more than a core concept of "That just seems to complicated to happen by chance!" isn't how you make a successful argument based on thermodynamics.
(that said, i've been lurking on the G5 thread on Ars's machach that now runs to 133 pages, and is in its second iteration. brainpain extremis)
Have been enjoying the debate from both sides. Evolution is undoubedly a fascinating topic, as are the arguments that propose that God 'created' everything, or designed it intelligently. Have never met a creatonist; in fact, in London, almost never meet anyone religious at all.
So, don't want to get into arguments as yet, just want to throw a few thoughts and queries around and to find out some background. Sorry if I've missed discussion on some of these points already.
Creationism: so, am I right in thinking that this proposes that the Earth was created 10 000 years ago (or 4k, in some other views). Don't understand how this figure came about. Had heard that someone had added up all the generations in the Bible and worked it out that way.
Now, dinosaurs come up a lot. But if the Earth is only 10 000 years old , does this mean that all fossils, such as trilobites (which are marvellous, and I wish there were still some around for us to play with) have been 'planted' when the Earth was built?
if so, why?
What is intelligent design - don't get this at all
Now, it's entirely possible that God exists. Haven't seen any evidence to say that he, she or it doesn't. Equally, I have seen no evidence that he, she or it exists at all. Now, given that, as I understand it, God is meant to be some kind of 'all powerful' being, what form might he, she or it take? A pan-galactic megabeing of awesome power? A 'force' of some kind?
A sidepoint - someone mentioned that Jesus didn't exist. I'd heard that Roman historians had written about Jesus, saying something like he was a prophet who was stirring up trouble in Palestine. Any data you've come across that can confirm or refute this?
And another side issue that's not really relevant - what's in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Discovered in the 1950s I think, but what do they say? How do they relate the writings of the Old or New Testament? Are they controversial (perhaps why we don't hear much about them) or boring?
Hang loose
G
-----------
Now playing: Duke Pearson and friends on KKJZ quicktime radio
Creationism: so, am I right in thinking that this proposes that the Earth was created 10 000 years ago (or 4k, in some other views). Don't understand how this figure came about. Had heard that someone had added up all the generations in the Bible and worked it out that way.
There are both "Young Earth" creationists and creationists who will go along with the idea of a very old planet, although I don't think either consider mankind to be more than 10,000 years old. And yes, as far as I know, figures in the ballpark of ~10,000 years come from counting all of those "begats".
Now, dinosaurs come up a lot. But if the Earth is only 10 000 years old , does this mean that all fossils, such as trilobites (which are marvellous, and I wish there were still some around for us to play with) have been 'planted' when the Earth was built?
There are the John Bircher types who claim that all evidence conflicting with creationism was planted by Satan, but for the most part, dinosaurs and trilobytes and the like are all written off as stuff that died in The Flood (getting a pair of triceratops into an ark is hard work!). It requires an amazing amount of hand-waving dismissal of a broad range of dating techniques... but what the heck?
What is intelligent design - don't get this at all
Think of this as sort of a tactical retreat from full-blown creationism. First "prove" that living organisms bear supposedly undeniable hallmarks of having been designed by an intelligent designer (which, of course means God, but could be taken to mean gods, plural, or a powerful race of aliens -- never mind how they came to be, or how their complexity arose). Then, having "proven" this, the hard work out of the way, come back later and "prove" the other trivial details of creationism, like how the story of Noah's Ark is *cough* literally true.
People who find themselves angry with evolution generally act out of defensiveness; the "evolutionists" are big meanie heads who are rude and smelly and poop-faces. So instead of ignoring the condescension and realizing the facts are solid they invest in inane rhetorical combat and ignore the nose on their face (or the tail above their ass, as it were).
They don't answer directly-asked questions. That is the hallmark of a dishonest person.
If comes back to Adam. If a literal Adam did not eat the fruit, then no sin was comitted, and there is no need for salvation, that means Jesus didn't exist.
Think of a known fundie, and imagine what a jibbering nervous train-wreck they'd be if they suddenly has proof that Jesus isn't real. I have to listen to work colleges rant on about how they were sinners, on a path to destruction, going nowhere, until they found Jesus. Jesus gives them strength, courage, and will power, sadly it makes them arrogant, judgemental and ignorant, and don't they just love to tell me.
So arguing creation theory with Creationists is rather a pointless exercise really, what you're (unintentionally) doing is actually taking Jesus away from them. This point alone means that whatever facts, evidence and reason you submit, it will automatically be wrong, because they're 100% convinced that Jesus has a personal relationship with them. And conditioned so that anyone who tries to seperate them from Jesus, is a tool of Satan. To them, the whole argument is just a test of Faith by people deceived by Satan.
Its a lost a cause to argue Evolution/Creation with the converted, almost all people would rather believe a lie, than have thier life ripped to shreds and spat out the other side. Unfortunately for them, they are not happy with their beliefs unless they are gobbing thier mouths off and trying to convert everyone - surely a sign of a shaky faith, and I just happen to have been on the receiving end of it on several occasions. It's all good fun
Originally posted by segovius
The only contemporary account we have is Josephus.
There were others, we know this because they are mentioned in secondary sources, but guess what ? they were destroyed purposefully by the Church. So we'll never know what they said.
Actually that's not quite true. We may yet find lost MS and we can always refer to the writings of the Gnostics for a flavour of their view of Jesus. The Gnostic were an early Christian sect, predating the Church and whom the Church disliked.
May I ask you, all knowing Seg, If you have read Josephus' accounts. I expect you read the evidence that these were inserted by the Church and known forgeries, what's your take?
I can understand the Church destroying the texts of the pagan religions of the day, but why purposefully destroy accounts of Jesus? Are you making that up?
Are you familiar with the evidence that the Gnostics were actually non-literalists, and actually subscribed to the traditional spiritual astrotheologies, but replaced their sun-gods with Jesus and Christian-esque writings, which is why the Church went all out for them. Your take?
It may even be that certain of these lost MS were amalgamated into the Qur'an where the figure of Jesus is an altogether more believable and coherent figure than his contradictory Biblical counterpart.
You go seg! I think you might need to prove the theory of Gravity wrong though, if you want to literally believe Jesus ascended into heaven. Good Luck.