Originally posted by Transfinitum
You mention "simple protein chains". Where did these come from? How were they formed? We cannot create these "simple" living chains of protein even in the laboratory today. You mention a number of these chains "attracting each other" and then "replicating". How did they replicate? What DNA existed to allow them to transcribe and replicate themselves? Are you stating that they replicated without DNA? What possible evidence can you present to substantiate these "stories".
Are you actually curious about these things? Or are you legitimately advocating ID? I like to know what I'm dealing with....it helps to know whether or not there's a chance of progress, or if I'm just talking to myself here. If it's the latter, I'll drop out of this discussion and refer you to ushome or something. But with the former, there's an actual chance to learn, so hopefully your scepticism is rooted in a desire to find something out, not just bash evolution, then there's hope.
DNA was a later development of evolution. It didn't exist for millions of years at the beginning of the process, but was a refinement of encoding material similar to what we term RNA, and earlier than that the replicators were even more rough and mundane. In any case, the early replicating entities that allowed for natural selection were far simpler. DNA isn't necessary for replication, it merely became the vessel of information over epochs of changes.
And yes, scientists can reasonably facsimilate early primordial conditions. Of course, any protein chains that might form quickly dissipate, but this is only natural, since the vast majority won't survive any length of time, which is part of the reason life developed slowly.
And hell, I'll do you one better: We have observed evolution itself in laboratory conditions, in fruit flies whose life spans are so short as to be able to track their genetic progress over generations. They've successfully evolved into separate species, which for humans would take many hundreds of thousands of years (at least) given our life span.
But to answer your question, proteins bond to each other naturally...heck, your hair is bonded proteins (among other aspects of your body). If a protein chain existed that attracted other similar proteins to it, it would replicate....early procreation. Not "living" in a traditional sense, but able to replicate. Occasionally an error would occur in replication and the new type of chain would usually be weaker and would dissolve/die. Occasionally it would be a stronger bond, or eventually structural improvement. These survived better and replicated more. In this way, complexity began to build. I don't really feel like drawing this out anymore, but you should get the idea. Add hundreds of millions of years to this of gradual complexification, and it's hard not to see how life emerged.
...so those are my stories, as you put it. They involve knowing what I'm talking about, not demanding evidence but offering no evidence for competing theories. The last part is basic evolutionary theory, the kind that gets glossed over in school textbooks quickly, before kids are old enough to understand it. In any case, please try to start debating with points of your own rather than simply demanding things of others....that's ID spic doctoring at its worst.
Excuse me, I had asked if you had any evidence for these "stories". Could you please provide a citation to an Evolutionary Biologist providing evidence. You tell me that proteins "naturally attract one another". If this event is so common; why have we never observed chains of proteins assembling themselves into living organisms in the laboratory? I appreciate your attempt to make this sound so easy, unfortunately it does not appear that your stories are susceptible to scientific verification. In this regard, they strike me as belonging to the literary genre of creation myths. Also, the experiments on Drosophila (fruit flies) have shown that no mutations have ever arisen which added anything new to genome of Drosophila! Indeed all mutations (extra legs, wings, etc.) disappeared within a few generations and the stock reverted to its pre-mutation form. This would seem to directly contradict the predictions of Darwinian Evolution.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Excuse me, I had asked if you had any evidence for these "stories".
Where is the evidence for opposing "stories" anyway?
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Could you please provide a citation to an Evolutionary Biologist providing evidence. You tell me that proteins "naturally attract one another". If this event is so common; why have we never observed chains of proteins assembling themselves into living organisms in the laboratory?
You are joking right? Complex organisms don't just pop together in a lab. It takes millions upon millions of years as we can see in the fossil record.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Also, the experiments on Drosophila (fruit flies) have shown that no mutations have ever arisen which added anything new to genome of Drosophila! Indeed all mutations (extra legs, wings, etc.) disappeared within a few generations and the stock reverted to its pre-mutation form. This would seem to directly contradict the predictions of Darwinian Evolution.
Extra legs and wings give no benefit (and almost certainly some penalty) to survival. Not every mutation gets passed down only the ones that allow the inheritor to produce more off spring or mate with a wider group. Having more legs or wings would make the fly's life difficult and probably quite short.
I am glad you mentioned the "millions of years" arguments for the assembling of proteins. Lets back up just a bit. According to scientist (Evolutionary scientists), the Earth was cool enough to harbor an ocean (the "soup"😉 that these proteins attracted each other in 3.8 BYA. Now surprisingly a fairly new discovery dated the first bacterial cells to be 3.8 BY old. That gave the proteins 0 years (give or take) to "randomly assemble". In that time span, they could never self assemble. And on the fruit flies, you give no explanation on why their genetic code "reset" after the fourth or fifth generation.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
I am glad you mentioned the "millions of years" arguments for the assembling of proteins. Lets back up just a bit. According to scientist (Evolutionary scientists), the Earth was cool enough to harbor an ocean (the "soup"😉 that these proteins attracted each other in 3.8 BYA. Now surprisingly a fairly new discovery dated the first bacterial cells to be 3.8 BY old. That gave the proteins 0 years (give or take) to "randomly assemble". In that time span, they could never self assemble.
Sounds like you're pulling stuff out your ass.
Also, still looking for a case that supports an alternative to evolution.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
And on the fruit flies, you give no explanation on why their genetic code "reset" after the fourth or fifth generation.
Pretend you're a woman. Would you have sex with a starving three leged freak? The genetic information doesn't get passed on from those flies.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI would like to point out SC that if another valid alternative to evolution doesn't exist that doesn't mean Evolution in and of itself becomes true.
Sounds like you're pulling stuff out your ass.Also, still looking for a case that supports an alternative to evolution.
Pretend you're a woman. Would you have sex with a starving three leged freak? The genetic information doesn't get passed on from those flies.
Just saying that is a terrible point 😛
Originally posted by Newjak
I would like to point out SC that if another valid alternative to evolution doesn't exist that doesn't mean Evolution in and of itself becomes true.Just saying that is a terrible point 😛
But it does make it the only point worth looking at. If I write up an argument with a couple of minor problems and you hand me a blank sheet of paper as a rebuttal anyone with basic reasoning skills would have to accept my orginal (and more importantly extant) argument.
He can claim that evolution has hole all he like but until he has an actual alternative that is meaningless.
So there durlaugh
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosNot really.
But it does make it the only point worth looking at. If I write up an argument with a couple of minor problems and you hand me a blank sheet of paper as a rebuttal anyone with basic reasoning skills would have to accept my orginal (and more importantly extant) argument.He can claim that evolution has hole all he like but until he has an actual alternative that is meaningless.
So there durlaugh
All that means is that with current limitations this is the best we can put forward.
Whether it is correct or not is yet to be seen but until something better comes along this is the probability we will work with.
And anyone who works with probabilities will tell ya its all inductive.
Therefore it must be looked at in all phases including the holes it possesses.
So he is right because any good theorist will also list weaknesses along with the strengths 😛
Originally posted by Newjak
Not really.All that means is that with current limitations this is the best we can put forward.
Whether it is correct or not is yet to be seen but until something better comes along this is the probability we will work with.
And anyone who works with probabilities will tell ya its all inductive.
Therefore it must be looked at in all phases including the holes it possesses.
So he is right because any good theorist will also list weaknesses along with the strengths 😛
So it's:
"with current limitations of science and a huge supply of data collected from various fields this is what we have"
vs
"something different happened"
I still see no sane reason to argue in favor of "something different happened" until someone provide evidence and I wouldn't personally look at it seriously until that "something" was defined scientifically (ie not "a wizard did it"😉
Originally posted by Transfinitum
I am glad you mentioned the "millions of years" arguments for the assembling of proteins. Lets back up just a bit. According to scientist (Evolutionary scientists), the Earth was cool enough to harbor an ocean (the "soup"😉 that these proteins attracted each other in 3.8 BYA. Now surprisingly a fairly new discovery dated the first bacterial cells to be 3.8 BY old. That gave the proteins 0 years (give or take) to "randomly assemble". In that time span, they could never self assemble. And on the fruit flies, you give no explanation on why their genetic code "reset" after the fourth or fifth generation.
However, that "0" you are talking about has a tolerance of +/- millions of years. Life waits for the conditions to be right, and then it takes no time at all +/- millions of years.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosHey I'm not arguing for ID my friend.
So it's:"with current limitations of science and a huge supply of data collected from various fields this is what we have"
vs
"something different happened"I still see no sane reason to argue in favor of "something different happened" until someone provide evidence and I wouldn't personally look at it seriously until that "something" was defined scientifically (ie not "a wizard did it"😉
I'm just saying your wrong about evolution being true simply because of the lack of another viable option. durflower
Originally posted by Newjak
Hey I'm not arguing for ID my friend.I'm just saying your wrong about evolution being true simply because of the lack of another viable option. durflower
I didn't say that was why evolution was right. I was point out to him that as much as he argued against evolution he still had nothing to offer in favor of his position.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI know but that doesn't automatically make him wrong either.
I didn't say that was why evolution was right. I was point out to him that as much as he argued against evolution he still had nothing to offer in favor of his position.
Just because his own claims may not be backed does not mean his claims about evolution are automatically false and you still have to answer them 😛
Anyways a quick question why is evolution in a religion forum?
Originally posted by Newjak
I know but that doesn't automatically make him wrong either.Just because his own claims may not be backed does not mean his claims about evolution are automatically false and you still have to answer them 😛
Which I did. I just also asked him to give an alternative.
Originally posted by Newjak
Anyways a quick question why is evolution in a religion forum?
People are stupid.
Whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whobwhob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whobwhob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob whob.
Who do you thin is Whob?