Show Me And I’ll Believe

[Rsade]

Why? Because it is supported by scientific evidence or because you don't bother to read up on evolutionary science?

 

I have a couple papers that hang on my wall that confirms I have already passed the overrated peer review of academia (I dislike the term Degreed feeling like I am saying I am not just an ordinary dog, I am a pedigreed dog) I enjoy all science, except for the pie in the sky darwinism.

 

however some of it is faith based abiogenesis for example, is pure fiction and hopefull thinking.Well thinking does not even play into the "theory" of AG.

[Racoon]

I enjoy all science, except for the pie in the sky darwinism.

 

Its good you have intelligent discussion Rsade, but Darwinism is anything but "pie in the sky"

 

Natural Selection means lots of death and failure! :hihi:

[Rsade]

but Darwinism is anything but "pie in the sky"

 

 

I agree that there can be many changes within the framework of a species or phylum. However the pie in the sky Darwinism that I allude to is the evolving from a specific species into another distinct species. Even this might be possible given enough time. However the few billion years that life has had here on earth (and the rest of the solar system) isn't nearly enough time to explain the number of Phylum's and variety of life that we observe.

[Racoon]

Do you mean Mutation?

 

Or one day I'm a bird, the next day I'm a lizard?

[blazer2000x]

Excuse me, but can someone please tell me what was supposed to have originally caused the circular ring of DNA still seen in prokaryotic cells to change into chromosomes? I can't find it anywhere.:hihi:

[ughaibu]

Does anyone know if there's a viral theory of speciation/extinction?

[HydrogenBond]

The evolutionary theory has the same problems as creationism, in that neither can conclusively prove their claims. If one plays the devil's advocate (excuse the metaphor), both can be made to look like swiss cheese. It comes down to opinion. The scientific opinion, in its defense, can provide more data and more demonstratable theory to explain its position, but it still not enough to justify why it has become a scientific dogma, which is defended with the intensity of religion. Both postions come down to faith. Faith is good, because it creates the hope of someday knowing things that can not be seen or conclusively proven at this time. It leads us to the future with the energy that stems fron hope and expectation.

[InfiniteNow]

The evolutionary theory has the same problems as creationism in that neither can conclusively prove their claims.

Here we go again...

[Pyrotex]

...some of it is faith based abiogenesis for example, is pure fiction and hopefull thinking.Well thinking does not even play into the "theory" of AG.

Let's take a look at prebiogenesis (as I like to think of it), or as archeo-organic chemistry. Have you heard this reasoning before?

 

Assume a very large body of water, comprising those terrestial regions where depth is less than 10 meters, along coastlines. Assume massive amounts of solutes from lava-water interaction, and volcanic dusts. Assume massive amounts of ammonia, CO2, N2, Sulpher in various guises, many acidic. Assume large temperature (thermal) fluctuations, lightning bolts, solar radiation, and cosmic radiation due to lack of ozone. In other words, "Soup" Assume a lot of Time.

 

We know from experiments that a virtually unlimited variety of carbon compounds will eventually result out of this Soup. Many species of molecule will be relatively common, other rare. Consider that we have a huge number of "test tubes" available for natural chemistry experiments: hidden coves, caves, mudflats, tidal flats, beach zones, pools, lakes, etc. The Earth is a big place, so 10 to the 10th power of cubic-meter sized "test-tubes" is plausible. Let the average lifetime of each "test-tube" be a year, so in a billion years, we have 10^19 chemistry experiments.

 

We are concerned only with experiments where molecules of a minimum size can form; say an atomic weight of 100,000. that would be around approx 7,000 to 10,000 Carbon atoms in the molecule. Naturally, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, with traces of iron, sulfur and phosphorus would make up the rest, since those are the most common.

 

What we are looking for is NOT "life". We are looking for chemical reactions that reproduce molecules. For example, A + B + C + energy => D + E.

But E + 2F + energy => 2B + G. As you can see by inspection, the molecule B (whatever it is) will tend to multiply. There may be other reactions going on that destroy B, but if over time the average production per cycle is > 1, then B will multiply.

 

However, if B's average percentage of all chems changes that much, then we have changed the chemical environment, and now we have a "different" experiment, that enables (or retards) other reactions. Even in one "test tube" (a cubic meter of Soup) we would not be surprised to see that every time we visited it, the "recipe" in that test tube has changed, perhaps drastically.

 

Over Time (big T, millions of years) what we're going to see is that there are a large number (billions?) of molecules that are favored. They will be in cyclical reactions that produce them much faster than they die off. They probably play a role in many of those reactions, such that the greater the presence of B, the faster B is produced. up to a point of course.

 

The presence of so many concentrated species of molecules is constantly changing the landscape of both chemistry and environment. As this occurs, the average molecular weight of the dominate species also increases. More complexity and more complex reactions become possible. All it takes is more Time for a species of molecule to arrive on the scene that directly makes (near) copies of itself. For example:

J + 10K + 22L + 16M + 4 N => 2J + 32P + 8Q + 8R

Here, J would be the first proto-RNA molecule.

 

"J" would spread all over the Earth, using many if not most of the 10^19 test tubes. The experiment evolves--and this is the key point. From this time onwards, we are not doing RANDOM experiments, we are doing RANDOM experiments on "J". Progress speeds up. Eventually, we have an experiment where J' is produced much more efficiently than mere J. Or maybe it is less fragile. Or maybe one of its side-effect molecules produced (ie, "8Q") assemble to protect the J'. It takes over, elbowing out the ordinary J.

 

Now we have a NEW experiment. 10^18 to 10^19 test tubes using J'.

Then a NEWER experiment with all those test tubes using J''.

Side reactions and the environment change as well, until happenstance produces reactions that support/protect/enable J" production, perhaps by producing a "cell wall". Clay has been suggested as a catalyst for this.

 

That's as far as I'm going. Or need to. We have a self-reproducing proto-RNA molecule that affects its own environment.

[blazer2000x]

Hmmm... I'd never seen it in that great detail before. But then wouldn't the earth have to be LOT older than just... what was it? 5. something billion years? It seems to reach the level of complexity of having millions of molecules would take quite a longer time with that description.

Anyway, I don't see why I'm asking this because no one noticed my last question it seems; but, are evolution and the big bang theory part of each other? Or are they separate theories? 'Cause bbt has more holes in it than evolution, which is saying a lot...

 

(p.s.: where did the chromosomes come from?!?! :hihi: )

[Pyrotex]

Hmmm... I'd never seen it in that great detail before. But then wouldn't the earth have to be LOT older than just... ... are evolution and the big bang theory part of each other? ...where did the chromosomes come from?

I wrote my essay above is some haste due to an approaching appointment. If I had had the time, I would have revised it a great deal. Especially choosing time spans, numbers, etc. But I hope the main idea gets across.

 

Most criticisms of prebio evolution talk about the probability of the first lifeform just randomly appearing. Chances of that are zero, I admit. But that isn't a good model in the first place. What we should look at is the fact that each year, hell, each DAY, was a chemical experiment in every liter of shallow water on the planet. And every DAY, the successful experiments, those that produced molecules that had even a 1-in-a-million shot improvement in their probability of being (re-)produced, altered the chemistry of the waters. So, the next DAY, you had a whole different set of experiments, dominated by the successful molecules.

 

Any idea how big 10^19 is? Humans have never performed that many experiments of any kind in 10,000 years. It would take a million human labs a million years to even approach that number. But planet Earth did that every DAY. And every DAY, conjured up a whole NEW set of experiments based on results of the previous DAYS. This is the power of evolution (at whatever level). Vastly massive parallel computation, with the results altering the conditions for the next set of vastly massive parallel computations.

 

ANY molecule that wins this "competition" will be a molecule simple in architecture (so it will be "easy" to build) but fiendishly complex in the details of its structure (so it can "store information"). It will have to cause its own reproduction with 99.9...% accuracy so that it can "win" the competition with other reproducing molecules, but NOT 100% accurate or it would never be able to "improve" itself. ANY such molecule, WOULD NECESSARILY and eventually dominate the organic chemistry of the entire planet. (Because it reproduces, that's why.)

 

If you just did a sequence of "random" chemistry experiments, this would NOT happen in a trillion lifetimes of the Universe. I agree. BUT--the planet did NOT perform its chemistry experiments sequentially, one at a time, or even millions at a time. It performed trillions of experiments in parallel, with the results building upon the gazillions of experiments that went on before. And here is the key point-- the affect of those unnumberable experiments ACCUMULATED from day to day.

 

On day # 5,993,212,800, molecule XY3 had a chance of reproduction of 1.00004. Which altered the chemistry for the next day...

On day # 5,993,212,801, molecule XY3 had a chance of reproduction of 1.00006. Which altered the chemistry for the next day...

 

This is the difference between the Paley arguement against evolution (pocket watch parts in a wind storm) and the way evolution REALLY works. In Paley's arguement ALL the experiments are RANDOM. In evolution, each experiment is build upon the accumulation of success of the previous experiments. Because only the succesful experiments contribute significantlyto the changing chemistry of the next day's experiments.

 

Sorry for the length.

[Pyrotex]

The evolutionary theory has the same problems as creationism, in that neither can conclusively prove their claims. ...It comes down to opinion. The scientific opinion, in its defense, can provide more data and more demonstratable theory to explain its position....

By your own statement, evolutonary theory (ET) does NOT have the "same problem" as creationism. ET has massive evidence and creationism has none. Now, what do you mean by "conclusively prove"? You can raise the bar and always demand more and more and more. At what point do you stop and say, "okay, the evidence is profoundly persuasive to the vast majority of those people who have studied the evidence and debated the merits and shortcomings of the theory."

 

ET is the ONLY workable theory we have that explains the vast majority of the evidence and doesn't require supernatural "magic".

 

Of course, ANY explanation that resorts to supernatural "magic" isn't a "theory" any more, since we have no understanding, no explanation, and no evidence for supernatural "magic". It's an Easter Bunny explanation.

[Pyrotex]

Hmmm... I'd never seen it in that great detail before. But then wouldn't the earth have to be LOT older than just... what was it? 5. something billion years? It seems to reach the level of complexity of having millions of molecules would take quite a longer time with that description....

Good question, but the answer is just the opposite. Starting from scratch with primordial "soup" for every experiment would take longer than the lifetime of the universe. Evolution works MUCH faster than that because the complexity of the "soup" changes from day to day. The results accumulate. You don't have to go from soup to life in one humongous step. That's like hitting every lottery in the world on the same day!!! :hihi: Getting millions (gazillions!!!) of molecules COMPETING with each other every day for reproduction dominance, vastly SPEEDS up the process.

[Pyrotex]

...where did the chromosomes come from?!?! :hihi: )

From my Uncle Henry's chrome plating shop in Redbay, Alabama.

[HydrogenBond]

I believe that life can form from basic chemistry but I question the genetic mutation connection. If one starts with basic molecules like ammonia, carbonate, acetate (simple amino acids), water, ethylene (small polyethylene polymerization make simple lipids), methane, etc. The lipids combine to make membranes, and the simple animo acids polymerize to make simple proteins. DNA and RNA are just polymers of nucleic acids. The nuclei acids only have to begin to polymerize. Mix this together with waves hitting the land. Under the right conditions (no oxygen or ozone atmosphere, so very high solar UV to break/reform chemical bonds) this may only takes weeks of months to make a very simple start to life.

 

The problem is that this simple logic is too fast to fill in all the expected science time scale, which is better served with random slow boat, and too slow happen in the creationist time scale.

[blazer2000x]

ET has massive evidence and creationism has none.

Just because you ignore evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. But I know you'll just ignore anything I say to try and show your closed little mind, so I won't try. I'm not in a very good mood now, because it seems no one on these forums is capable of answering even one of the simplest questions.

Anyway, a shell of clay may protect a molecule, but something like that would slow/harm the molecules' reproducing by not allowing them to come in contact with the molecules they needed to create the chemical reaction. (all-around permeability would make the "membrane" useless, and selective permeability would be impsiible at this stage).

I have seen way more than enough proof in just the fourteen years I've lived to believe undoubtedly in God. While you evolutionists ignore every single piece of evidence for the simple reason of what it is.

And what defines a "scientific theory"? If it breaks one or more basic principles of science, doesn't that qualify it as a fairy tale?

I've now asked two questions not counting the above that no one seems able to answer. I guess you just answer what you can and pretend the rest isn't there.

[Rsade]

Does anyone know if there's a viral theory of speciation/extinction?

 

There was a obscure mention of it in an old paper, sorry I cant remember where I read it. I wonder if the degraded dino DNA could be searched for viral bacteritcial evidence of extinction? sounds fascinating (as Spock would say) to me...I think that even the material plant and other wise could be inspected for a viral pathology.....