plaetton:

C'mon Deepsight,
I am surprised that you would even pay attention to , let alone cheer this breed of mental lilliputian.

loveroftruth:

But for this me that can lose life when all the amino acid and water is still in me, i definitely know you are saying irrelent things as far this subject is concern.

loveroftruth:

If not, then note that matter will remain matter nomatter how you organised them, it will not, never gain consciousness.

plaetton:

Why don't you address the question of sexual reproduction according to your own version of evolution. Afterall, you do ACCEPT evolution as a fact, don't you?

And what if I am unable to address sexual reproduction to suit you, does that mean that ...?

You guys are deaf and dumb.
No idea of science is afraid to be wrong and no person of science is afraid to say I dont know, or I can't explain.
Asking how and why organisms become sexual or sexually reproductive is not any different as asking why our star is yellow rather than white or red, or any other colour, or why our earth has one moon instead of ten.
One needs to know just how every atom in the universe behaves or behaved in the past to know how everything little detail came to be.
That's why I think your questions are infantile. I am not kidding.
If we dont know precisely when and how the first life in the universe began, then for you that means ....?
If we dont know why organisms decided to have sex instead of just splitting into two, so for you that means....?

You appear as some who is desperately looking for a straw to clutch on to save your worldview and identity.
Its like someone earlier trying to imply that if I cannot explain speaking in tongues, then I have to agree that god must exist.

The superiority of scientific reasoning rests on the fact that we can use what we know to speculate on what we may not be able to experimentally prove. For example,we understand Newtonian Physics, we can calculate the mass and gravitational force of a distant planet without having to go there to measure it.
And also, we are open to make corrections when we have better information.

This habit of seeking absolute magical answers is very childish and shows a lack of understanding of how basic science works.
Only an ignorant person would say that if science or a scientific theory cannot show this or that, then it must be the magic of an invisible god.
This precisely why god keeps doing the disappearing act each time science makes a new discovery.

Your positions, which you are still skirting around, are based on nothing that is observable, measurable or even mathematically deduceable. It is running on pure gas of fantasy.
" I believe that there must be a hidden force, therefore it is fact"
I really dont understand how you can make s much noise based on just your inner feeling.

At least make an attempt to just show how the almighty invisible omniness interfaces and directs the course of evolution.

If you can't , then BE SILENT!

plaetton:

Abiogenesis attempts to account for the emergence of life from simple organic molecules.


Abiogenesis – A brief history Even though Darwin himself focused on the origin of species, some scientists have tried to apply the concept of evolution to the first life to form the concept of abiogenesis. In 1924, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin proposed that living cells arose gradually from nonliving matter through a sequence of chemical reactions. According to Oparin, gases present in the atmosphere of primitive earth, when induced by lightening or other sources of energy, would react to form simple organic compounds. These compounds would subsequently self-assemble into increasingly complex molecules such as proteins. [size=16pt]These, in turn, would organize themselves into living cells.[/size] In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested Oparin’s hypothesis by conducting an experiment that attempted to simulate the atmospheric conditions of primitive earth. In their experiment, water boiled into vapor at the bottom of a flask and then passed through an apparatus, combining with ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. They then subjected the resulting mixture to a 50,000-volt-spark before cooling and collecting it in a trap at the bottom of the apparatus. When Miller and Urey examined the resulting tar-like substance, they found a collection of amino acids, the building blocks of life. - See more at: http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm#sthash.SQtMSzwJ.dpuf

Now although the theory of abiogenesis still has many problems and many questions to sort out, it lays the basic scientific idea of how simple living cells may have emerged from chemical reactions billions of years ago.
Infact, for all we know, such a process may have initially taken place in another galaxy several billions years further down the road,and perhaps transported to earth by meteorites or crashing comets.

Now, It is entirely up to you whether you accept or reject it.

Now , on the second issue of consciousness, again scientific thinking is now looking at the possibility that it arises as a result of quantum mechanical processes in the brain cells. In other words, it is possibly a biochemical function that occurs when the conditions are right , and not a divine attribute.
Again, it's either you keep an open mind or you keep your mind closed.

Deep Sight:

You are EXCEEDINGLY FUNNY!

And you dare go about saying this or that is "laughable" is a "fairy-tale" laughing at sky daddies and Santa Claus and all that! You are FAR worse! You make astonishing logical leaps and you believe in pure fantasy and even outright falsehood, and you dare pass it off as science or logic!

VERY SIMPLY:

ARE AMINO ACIDS LIVING THINGS?

Look at the bold in your quote above. Is there any experiment that has EVER shown that? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Just one? Any at all? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You refer to an experiment producing amino acids said to be the building blocks of life. You could just as well refer to an experiment producing star dust, as we are made of star dust, no? You could also refer me to an experiment producing water, as we are 70 per cent water, no? Can we not show an experiment combining Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce water? Is water not cardinal to life? Does such an experiment therefore disclose emergent life?

In fact look here, about your Amino Acids -

Amino acids (/əˈmiːnoʊ/, /əˈmaɪnoʊ/, or /ˈæmɪnoʊ/) are biologically important organic compounds made from amine (-NH2) and carboxylic acid (-COOH) functional groups, along with a side-chain specific to each amino acid. The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, though other elements are found in the side-chains of certain amino acids. About 500 amino acids are known[1] and can be classified in many ways. Structurally they can be classified according to the functional groups' locations as alpha- (α-), beta- (β-), gamma- (γ-) or delta- (δ-) amino acids; other categories relate to polarity, pH level, and side chain group type (aliphatic, acyclic, aromatic, containing hydroxyl or sulfur, etc.) In the form of proteins, amino acids comprise the second largest component [size=16pt](after water)[/size] of human muscles, cells and other tissues.[2] Outside proteins, amino acids perform critical roles in processes such as neurotransmitter transport and biosynthesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids

Just look at the bold!

Note that it says "the second largest component AFTER WATER!"

So in fact, it is apt to look at water as the most important component - and as such, an experiment producing water should be even more important than your experiment producing amino acids!

Is water a living thing. Does an experiment producing water therefore show emergent Life? Are Amino acids living things. Does an experiment producing Amino Acids therefore show emergent Life?

If an experiment produces the matter on which living things dwell, has such an experiment shown the emergence of life? Are amino acids living things? Has any experiment demonstrated the bold in your post above?

The truth is, the bold in your post above is a bare faced LIE: fantasy and imagination at work. It is a lie. It has not been shown to happen in ANY experiment anywhere ever, and you are yet happy to interpolate it to plug a gaping hole, a massive gap, in your worldview.

How dare you sound so presumptuous and then go ahead to cite something such as that bare faced LIE? Which experiment has ever shown that to happen anywhere? Such components forming living cells as said in the bold of yours? Just which? Kindly show me, good sir!

You see, we have seen this over and over. The gloating atheist intoxicated with the aroma of pseudo scientific philosophy such that he imagines himself reasoning at some higher level than the regular theist. It ALWAYS emerges that you fellows do not even have a clue of what you seek to discuss!

If you are so ready to gulp down such unsubstantiated claims, what makes you any different from the Santa Claus gang who you deride?

The bold in your post is a MOST disgraceful assumption built on nothing a fantastic leap of fantasy, never experimented, and never observed to occur anywhere at any time. It is far worse that Santa Claus!

And yet you smugly advance it? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Alfa Seltzer: @ deepsight, so you think consciousness defines life then? That until these chemical elements gain consciousness, they cannot be considered to be alive? Is that what you are saying?

Alfa Seltzer:

Yes, they would: adaptation to environmental changes.

Deep Sight:

Is water a living thing? Does it have Mr. NIGER D?

Deep Sight:

Friend, you are entitled to your opinion. He made very sound and lucid points which I am sure you would see if only you took off the blinkers of dogma and bias. I say to you that it is YOU who is desperately trying to hold on to a worldview.

These points of his are VERY apt:





Not the best written English, but excellent points.

Deep Sight:

And as far as we know, unicellular organisms, through all environmental changes, remain the most successful organisms. As such, there is still no discernable evolutionary impetus there.

Secondly, can you name an environmental change which will cause an adaptation that makes multi cellular organisms evolve from unicellular organisms - and how such a change would help the arising multi cellular organism in relation to that environmental change?

Deep Sight:

This is a completely vacant post which says nothing and addresses nothing.

You are unable to address the simple posers and you wind up writing irrelevant epistles about what science is and other completely empty rhetoric.

You have said one big fat nothing.

It is sad that you are so unable to address even the simple poser on the evolutionary explanation for se.xuality. That poser ALONE shows up everything wrong with the idea of evolution as conceived by people like you. That poser alone, completely destroys everything you believe and claim in that regard.

Rather than man up, you are busy writing irrelevancies, while sitting pompously on a high horse of ignorance, laughing at others as Santa Clausists.

And worse, you throw up shocking falsehoods far worse than any religious fairy tales - as I noted here -



To which of course you said nothing!

Deep Sight: ^^^ Se.xuality could not be the result of evolution. Evolution does not work in such a way as to produce the se.xes at all in the first place. If you cannot get that, then I can't help you.

I have tried, with all the posers, to show you that evolution alone cannot account for things.

I don't know why you keep saying my opening this thread was meant to steal a march on you. I have explained that already.

So far so good, there is nothing tangible you have been able to say.

Daz all.

Uyi Iredia: The abiogenesis argument posed by plaetton fails woefully. Thge compounds Oparin discovered are dubbed coacervates and the proteinous compunds are cross-linked in such a way to make them of no use. In his opus 'Signature In The Cell' which I'm now reading (and will advice anyone seeking to know in detail problems regarding abiogenesis to buy or download) Stephen Meyer, a geoscientist and a PHD holder in the history and philosophy of science shatters arguments for abiogenesis. Of course, our materialist friend are prone to play deaf but I'll list 3 important points right of Meyer's 2010 book. Plaetton apparently knows little about what he preaches because RNA world (which incorporates gene first and metabolim first models) is the predominent model being worked on especially by the likes of Jack Szostak, Oparin's works was done decades ago and has been debunked by scientists including other evolutionists, same for Miller who didn't accirately reproduce early earth atmosphere (which contains according to Wikipedia 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen, 10% carbon dioxide and 7% Hydrogen sulfide. Not to mention that early earth was supposedly very radioactive and open to much UV radiation). The points against RNA world are as follows:

* RNA building blocks are hard to synthesize and easy to destroy. Case in point: cytosine and uracil deaminate (lose essential parts of the chemical structure by NH2 removal) with half-lives of 19 days and 1e2 years respectively. RNA chains in uncontrolled reactions can and tend to cross-link to form inert substances.
* Ribosomes are poor substitutes for proteins. Case in point: proteins are used to make DNA and to escape this RNA is proposed as first arising since it does act like proteins. However, it is way to inefficient since it lacks multiple bonding sites to catalze multi-step reactions needed in a cell.
* An RNA-based translation and coding system is implausible. Case in point: Anyone with good genetic basis knows in most cases cellular reaction proceeds from DNA to RNA to protein. Aminoacylation binds RNA to amino acids. It involves 2 reactions which proteins help catalyze. Riboszymes (RNA's which can perform as enzymes) are unsuitable for such reactions. In fact, the likes of Szostak engineer ribosomes to do reactions they don't normally do.

I think the detailed points above should shatter plaetton's pathetically facile and asinine take on it. The same goes for otherwise eminent scientists. What's even most glaring is that most abiogenesis experiments (right from Miller's) involve artificial conditions and intelligent input. Miller intervened in his experiment to stop cross_reaction of amino acids, what in Nature can do that AS AT WHEN required, Miller used a trap which was collected amino residues, where in Nature can such a trap, sufficiently close to where a Miller type reaction can occur, be found; finally Miller's fails because it is acknowledged by geologists (from oxidation reaction marks evident in early rocks) that oxygen was available in early earth, I wonder if a chemist would dare put in even 5% oxygen in Miller's reaction and actually presnt wondrous findings.

plaetton:

" These in turn would organize themselves into living cells".
If you dont know what that means, then It seems that I have greatly overestimated something.
What it means is that these proteins, over eons of time, through an series of infinite micro-processes, would eventually organize themselves, as laid out by the theory of abiogenesis, into living cells.

Where is the lie?

Alfa Seltzer:

The bolded is simply wrong. I don't even know where to begin.

Alfa Seltzer:

How do you know the bolded to be true? Look at snails. Nothing prevents them from evolving into specific male and female snails in the next 2000000 years.

Alfa Seltzer:

You dodging my question?

Uyi Iredia: The abiogenesis argument posed by plaetton fails woefully. Thge compounds Oparin discovered are dubbed coacervates and the proteinous compunds are cross-linked in such a way to make them of no use. In his opus 'Signature In The Cell' which I'm now reading (and will advice anyone seeking to know in detail problems regarding abiogenesis to buy or download) Stephen Meyer, a geoscientist and a PHD holder in the history and philosophy of science shatters arguments for abiogenesis. Of course, our materialist friend are prone to play deaf but I'll list 3 important points right of Meyer's 2010 book. Plaetton apparently knows little about what he preaches because RNA world (which incorporates gene first and metabolim first models) is the predominent model being worked on especially by the likes of Jack Szostak, Oparin's works was done decades ago and has been debunked by scientists including other evolutionists, same for Miller who didn't accirately reproduce early earth atmosphere (which contains according to Wikipedia 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen, 10% carbon dioxide and 7% Hydrogen sulfide. Not to mention that early earth was supposedly very radioactive and open to much UV radiation). The points against RNA world are as follows:

* RNA building blocks are hard to synthesize and easy to destroy. Case in point: cytosine and uracil deaminate (lose essential parts of the chemical structure by NH2 removal) with half-lives of 19 days and 1e2 years respectively. RNA chains in uncontrolled reactions can and tend to cross-link to form inert substances.
* Ribosomes are poor substitutes for proteins. Case in point: proteins are used to make DNA and to escape this RNA is proposed as first arising since it does act like proteins. However, it is way to inefficient since it lacks multiple bonding sites to catalze multi-step reactions needed in a cell.
* An RNA-based translation and coding system is implausible. Case in point: Anyone with good genetic basis knows in most cases cellular reaction proceeds from DNA to RNA to protein. Aminoacylation binds RNA to amino acids. It involves 2 reactions which proteins help catalyze. Riboszymes (RNA's which can perform as enzymes) are unsuitable for such reactions. In fact, the likes of Szostak engineer ribosomes to do reactions they don't normally do.

I think the detailed points above should shatter plaetton's pathetically facile and asinine take on it. The same goes for otherwise eminent scientists. What's even most glaring is that most abiogenesis experiments (right from Miller's) involve artificial conditions and intelligent input. Miller intervened in his experiment to stop cross_reaction of amino acids, what in Nature can do that AS AT WHEN required, Miller used a trap which was collected amino residues, where in Nature can such a trap, sufficiently close to where a Miller type reaction can occur, be found; finally Miller's fails because it is acknowledged by geologists (from oxidation reaction marks evident in early rocks) that oxygen was available in early earth, I wonder if a chemist would dare put in even 5% oxygen in Miller's reaction and actually presnt wondrous findings.

Deep Sight:

Lol, and which experiment has ever shown this to have been the case?

You are too funny sir.

Deep Sight:

No, water is not a living thing, just as amino acids are not living things and as such an experiment which produces water does nothing to show emergent life, just as an experiment which produces amino acids does nothing to show emergent life!

plaetton:

The one I cut and pasted and from which you quoted.

I don tire for you!.
Na wa

Alfa Seltzer:

That wasn't my question but anyway, let it be.

Deep Sight:

Begin with my question -

"Can you name an environmental change which will cause an adaptation that makes multi cellular organisms evolve from unicellular organisms - and how such a change would help the arising multi cellular organism in relation to that environmental change?"

Alfa Seltzer:

I have many, but as you said "an", I will give you one. To avoid, or resist new preys.

Deep Sight:

What is your question?

Deep Sight:

Ok, do that.

Deep Sight:

^^^^ Sadly, he is himself very well aware of the terrible problems with abiogenesis and has said so, but curiously sits around holding it up as that which answers the evident questions!

Then, he looks around and says he is laughing at others, really funny Guy, Plaetton. I wonder who you are laughing at or with. The laugh's all on the fairy tale answers and outright falsehoods you have been referring to!

You referred to a write up which said and I quote verbatim - "These compounds would subsequently self-assemble into increasingly complex molecules such as proteins. These, in turn, would organize themselves into living cells."

You then fold your arms and declare "So no God needed!" - - - when the bold above in that statement is an outright falsehood because it has never been observed anywhere, no experiment has shown this, nothing whatsoever to suggest that could ever happen. And you then look around and say that other people are believing in fairy tales!

It would be hilarious if it were not so delusional and perverse!

Uyi Iredia: @ Deep Sight: It is apparent that saying you believe in evolution whilst being skeptical of abiogenesis and common descent is what plaetton jests you for. That said I think it's better to state that one disbelieves evolution if he/she doesn't accept abiogenesis (has I'd sympathies) and disbelieves universal common ancestry. I'll expatiate.

A correct and broad definition of evolution is the change in a population over successive generations or the change in allele frequency. I would be the last to dispute that since it's very obvious. What lacks proper basis is common ancestry and abiogenesis. A quick word on abiogenesis: Evolutionists fraudulently seperate the two when arguing but they are in fact much intertwined. There is an ongoing effort to merge abiogenesis and evolution into a general theory of evolution, it is most evident from the title of Darwin's book that a theory that explains how species diversify needs to explain how they originate in the first place and for a long time evolutionists invoke natural selection and mutation as the method which the first proto-life became an acutual cellular organism. Julius Rebek once proposed a form of pre-biological mutation in which a proto-lifeform incorporated other chemicals and natural selection filtered out the best. Cdk007 in his abiogenesis video on YouTube beguiles many people by illustrating the same. The flaw in this posit is OBVIOUS to a thinking person.
I, YEC's, OEC's and ID theorists do believe in a form of common ancestry. This is not recent and has been for centuries now. Even some Christians supported Darwin because a level of common ancestry was evident. If I recall well Linnaeus (the taxonomist) or some other Christian scientist advocated the fixity of species which is quite fraudulently attributed to YEC's especially today. The YEC's model is what I subscribe to (some ID'sts like Behe and Sternberg subscribe to universal common ancestry which I think is nonsense). YEC's believe there were specific created kinds inbuilt with VIGE (variation-inducing genetic elements) which help the species occupy various ecological niches over time. So Darwin's finches, for example, involved a robust ancestral genome which was 'multifested' in the unique finches drawn in biology textbooks. This is NOT a basis for UCA because there are limits to what it can take, except in the evolutionary fairytale land. Of course, you are dealing with people who believe, like their forbear, that ungulates like cows and hippos (that forbear said bears opening their moths to catch fish) evolved to be whales and dolphins that inhabit marine habitats. Case in point, it is well-known in taxonomy for a long time certain 'species' interbreed. Funny though, some descendant species don't naturally interbreed (at least not usual enough) and some that descend from can't be interbred (artificial insemination fails to work) as in certain 'species' of fruit-flies cultured in the lab. A good example of VIGE's acting is in dog. These species have been selectively bred for centuries very likely from an ancestral species like African wild dogs or a genus of wolf. From Boerbaels to Daschunds, from Saint-Bernards to chihuahuas and yet they are a single variation of species, why because no matter how strongly they are bred for certain traits they don't evolve an entirely new trait TRULY NOVEL to their genome (I say truly novel cuz some fraudsters point at certain mutations eg drooping ears in dogs as novel where they involve loss-of-function mutation). Greyhound for instance are strongly bred for speed and despite massive selection pressure for traits that enhance it don't graudually (or punctually) grow hooves and extremely muscular torsos.

After all is said, what evolutionsists want is that you eat the story hook, line and sinker. If you differ with the aspects of the theory mentioned and in paricular the ability of random mutation and NS to drive evolutionary change you don't believe in evolution. At least, not the mainstream version.

Good evening.

plaetton:

It might be delusion if I had anything to protect or fight for.
Infact, scientific ideas are not under any threat because they can always be revised.
You are the one who is in trouble because your absolute truths will always be under attack.

It does not matter to me that Abiogenesis is not perfect. It is imperfect because there are too much that are unknown.
You dont throw away the baby with the bath water. The basic idea is very relevant and shows plausibility.

Science involves a patchwork of different ideas.
Does that fact elude you?

Exactly where do you throw your lot?
Plausible ideas or fantasies?.