Most biologists believe RNA was one of the first biochemical molecules to develop, and experiments have shown that under the right conditions it can perform the functions of itself as well as those of DNA and proteins. In fact there is an entire hypothesis called the "RNA world" that has been developed around these concepts; look it up on google or wikipedia and you’ll find plenty of info.

At my university, a group of students recently conducted experiments in which RNA was found to spontaneously isolate itself inside protective spheres of phospholipids. I’ll have to see if I can get a copy of the research paper; they think this could lead to explaining the formation of the first cells.

basically when you’re writing something like this, you wanna look up what the mainstream belief is and write about that. You may also include a chapter on "alternative hypothesis" but it should be best to stick with the mainstream one

Guyz, has anyone here heard of "Carin Smith’s" theory on the Origin of life?
It tries to prove that the initial replicators was not RNA or some other molecule, but actually "clay replicator".

Check this website dedicated to the theory.
[http://originoflife.net/crystals/index.html]

I haven’t read Carin Smiths book but I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins – "The Blind watchmaker" (currently in Ch:8)

I was quite impressed by the theory, it is logical. However I don’t know if there is much evidence for it.

It is Cairn-Smith, but if I remember some people that know their chemistry better than I do have been able to point multiple flaw in that otherwise interesting and elegant theory.

I think you’d better write about "protein-first and nucleic acid-first" paradox. The research articles of Joyce, Orgel, Eigen and Dyson can be an useful reference for you. Best wishes.

I remember some; Biblical, biogenesis, spontaneous, physico-chemical and cosmozoic theories.

I have thought if they’re viruses but since you have said "phospholipids" my thought lead me to a true cell. It just reminded me of some questions like what made the certain elements to react with one another and form such first biomolecules of life or perhaps their interactions were spontaneous indeed.

by the way alex, i hope your peers published their results, cause if not jack szostack beat them to it
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 07018.html

I am assuming you mean how it started and the above posts pretty much sum it up but if you mean where it started youve got:

panspermia hypothesis: life came from another planet on meteorite etc.

Bible: you know

or the mainstream – it originated on earth because the early earths atmoshere had no oxygen=no oxydisation=organic compunds are able to exist(e.g. Nucleic acids, proteins, carbs etc) and were created by energy discharges like lightning or using the heat from volcanism.

Google and you will find loads on any of these.

ps. sorry for any typos… im running late for an appointment.

Everyone that has ever commented on the origins of life are reduced to their opinions, even the great Richard Dawkins is left to speculation. The last time I saw Dawkins he said no one knew how the first lifeform started and speculated that it could have come from Aliens. The chances of DNA occuring in nature by accident were put at "No mathematical possibility" That’s 0 for you that have trouble with numbers, The problem with those of us who dont believe in evolution is all the steps it would take to get to advanced life without the species dieing out.All the vital organs that each species have that without any of them "no life". What happened on Earth even 10,000 years ago is really a mystery because there are no written records of those events, of course evolutionists will disregard any other explanation of life as foolish. The Bible says that the proof of God is in Nature, look at the beauty and complexity and then reason.

You should read the first chapter of Nick Lane’s new book "Life Ascending." He discusses the reasons why the "primordial soup" idea is not feasible (mostly because there is very little evidence and there are problems with thermodynamics) and discusses more recent research into life evolving in hydrothermal vents.

The thing that many seem to forget about the origens of life on earth is that it happened without any competition. It’s not like these molecular oddities had to get started on the current earth. They just had to be able to get the replication/variation/selection cycle started.
DNA doesn’t have to spontaneously generate. RNA seems to be able to start the process of evolution all by itself. Obviously not well by modern standards, but when there’s no competition, no enzymes (RNAases) nothing to get in the way, it’s not hard to imagine that those early RNAs mutated to assemble protiens to protect them, DNA to more stabily store RNA templates and cells to concentrate nutrients.
If you break it down into baby steps it becomes almost inevitable that life happened.

I have a new theory for the Origin of Life on the earth. Life has originated from primordial membranes that have formed from hydrocarbon chains in the earth’s crust about 3.7 billion years ago. These membranes developed electrical potentials resulting in the evolution of consciousness. The erosion of the hydrocarbons by the membrane potentials led to the development of various other organic molecules.

I have propounded a hypothesis with an adequte scientific ground. I have written a book titled "The Role of Cell Membrane in the Origin of Life and in Cell Biology". If you are interested you may discuss it in full detail with me.
Dr Krishnagopal

The processes you describe sound like excellent candidates for recreation in the lab. Do you have any simulations in the works? Repeatable evidence is the difference between "science" and "making stuff up".

I thought When Earth was a molten surface. It was Bombarded with space objects that carried the first round of life-bearing substance and imbued the planet with its own sense of identity. Before the earth experiment began and the turning of the hardened planet surface into habitable by electrically shocking the core with a laser, and spray an oxygen shell around atmosphere with plasma ballon inflation. Then people arrived… How come there is no consensus??

Pease tell me you are kidding.

Have any of you thought about the fact that the model of Evolution, is totally destroyed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.

OK I’m going to try to explain the second law of thermodynamics without resorting to math.
The basic idea is that things that are ordered will tend to become disordered. Think of a carefully stacked pyramid of cannon balls. Anything you do to the cannon balls will tend to result in thier no longer being piled up neatly in a pyramid. In fact no matter how much you randomly fiddle with them the chances of them ever being neatly piled in a pyramid again are infinitessimal.
Notice I said randomly. If, however, you decide you want them to be in a neat pyramidal pile and start restacking them you do not violate the second law (obviously it’s possible I’ve seen it done) when you succeed in stacking them. If you only fixate on the pile of cannon balls it appears that the order has increased. The universe, and the laws of thermodynamics,take a more wholistic view. Into the entropy equation go many other things besides the cannon balls small increase in order. There is the energy used by the person doing the stacking (Millions? of molecules of chemicals converted to more random forms, Lots of just plain heat given off by doing Work that cause the molecules in the area to move faster, get farther appart and be less ordered.)
Things can become more ordered locally if the process also makes even more disorder happen elsewhere. Life and evolution are increadably good at this.

You said that it appears as if the pyramid, has become more complex, as in an optical illusion, because the really haven’t become more complex, just reorganized, right?
Does that mean that you are saying that evolution just reorganized the cells in animals, so they haven’t evolved, they were just reorganized?

My explanation was about the 2nd law, not evolution. I said the stacked balls had more order, not complexity. They are not synonymous. You need to understand these concepts without the bias of trying to prove or disprove anything. If you feel you must disprove evolution all you have do do is come up with another theory that explains how life works and is consistent with all the evidence collected by humanity.

Very true, and that other theory, is called Creation.

Many would argue that creationism isn’t even a theory. I think this is wrong. Creationism is a theory and it’s easily stated. God did it. Being scientists we like to check the details though. How, where, why and when did god do it? To be a good beleivable theory you must have good (prefferably logical and obvious) aswers to these questions . Let me also add that evidence can’t be strictly heresay. Because Moses said so doesn’t cut it.
You must also explain my favorite problem with creationism. Why is your intelligent designer so bad at designing? A couple quick examples, The lower back (lumbar vertibrae) , Why do the paths of air being breathed and food being swallowed cross each other? (serious chocking hazard). Why give the gift of flight to birds and not us? Why give a much more efficient repiratory system to birds and not us? Maybe God likes birds better. Ask any doctor for further examples of poor design.
Creationism is a theory, just a bad one that was abandonned in the 19th century for good reasons.
Believe whatever you want but if you choose to believe something stupid I reserve the right to dispute you and laugh at you if it’s really dumb.

Also although you may think that Creation has been abandoned, there are thousands of people, that would disgree with you there.
I have said this many times, and I will say it again, if you go back to the very beginning of either viewpoint, you come up with an eternal Intelligent Creator (God) or eternal matter. Evolution takes more faith to beieve in, than Creation.
http://www.great-quotes.com/quote/1117193
Also why is it that most people on this website, answer my comments with insults. Sure, I can see that none of you like what I am saying, but throwing insults rather than providing evidence, makes you sound very unintelligent, and not professional at all.

I thought we were discussing science not faith. Obviously if you are using faith you can believe anything you want and I can’t argue with faith. Faith does have some spotty history though. Good ideas according to faith, Burning people alive, crashing airliners into office buildings, killing healthcare providers etc. Then there’s the problem of faith in who? You mentioned thousands of people who believe in creation. Can’t argue with that statement but there are hundreds of millions who believe that the creation theory includes the world sitting on the back of a really big turtle. Does that sound more of less silly than flammable shrubbery telling you what to do.
You also haven’t answered my questions about why your intelligent designer doesn’t seem able to design very well. Why creat all those people who believe all those untrue religeons?
As for insulting you, don’t feel bad, Aristotle, one of the great minds of western civilisation, was wrong about everything. It took hundreds of years of science to undo the weird stuff he made up.
Also in science we try not to take things personally.

First of all, there is evidence for Creation, as I have shown in many posts on this website.
Second, about why God created people, who do not worship him, God doesn’t want mindless zombies, he wants people to accept him because they feel grateful to him. Think about it, if you were able to create beings capable of their own thoughts, wouldn’t you rather create them, rather than some machine that tells you that you are awesome every morning?
As to the insults I am not merely complaining, I take no offense at your insults, but I like to think that I am conversing with intelligent people, who back up their claims with evidence, rather than people who just call names.

Still no answer for why the design is so bad and seems to be overly dependent on designs carried forward from earlier ancestral forms. In evolution it’s called evolutionary baggage and it’s just what you would expect.

Give some examples of bad designs please.

The chiropractic industry is based on the lower back pain that humans are so prone to.
Only an idiot would have the path of air into the lungs cross the path of food and water into the stomache. Serious choking hazard.
On the subject of breathing our lungs breath in and out through the same path, this mixes new air with old air which is very inefficient. Birds have a better system that uses a series of air sacs to push air through the lung in only one direction.
Heck if I was designing humans I’d make them able to fly and photosynthesize and rationally control our population.
I’d also suggest that sex should be more satisfying with long term committed partners than first time flings and adultery.
Why viruses?
Why birth defects?
Why cancer?

There may be reasons for that setup, as there were for the appendix, which man thought was useless, until it was discovered that it had many purposes. Also there would be many problems, with man being that way, and what do you mean by rationally control our population?
As to your questions, let it suffice to say that if man lived his life the way that God intended him to, we would have none of those problems.

When you say "there may be reasons" in science you are then expected to say what those reasons are.
I’m curious, I know what the appendix (Cecum) does in other species. Slow fermentation of fiber.
What are those great things that it does in humans that would outweigh the intense pain and death associated with it? Why can’t God make it work for us without the apendicitis?
In science attempting to avoid answering questions makes people assume you don’t know what you are talking about. Better to say "interesting question, I don’t know". That way people will at least think you gave it some thought.
As you are new to science I will give an example.
God created everything therefore God created cancer. He gave us cancer to make us appreciate life more. Not obviously very convincing to those who get cancer but it at least follows the right form and is logical.

just look on our eyes

we are trying to have a conversation for grownups if you don’t mind.

if it was to me, I was suggesting another example of bad design

Hypercycles, as an overarching organization of autocatalytic sets, have been proposed as a model for the origin of life (Eigen and Schuster 1977) and are explained at Principia Cybernetica Web. However, complex hypercycles only exist as computer simulations. More than thirty years after the introduction of the hypothesis, there is no experimental evidence whatsoever for complex, possibly prebiotic hypercycles. This makes them still nothing more than mere speculation and, while the hypothesis has been a recurring theme in the scientific literature about the origin of life, it is not frequently mentioned anymore in recent publications in the field.
So far only one, very simple, hypercycle has been generated more than 10 years ago in the laboratory with two self-replicating peptides by the group of Ghadiri (Lee et al. 1997). However, these authors posted a correction (Lee et al. 1998) where they state: “Although the kinetic data suggest the intermediary of higher-order species in the autocatalytic processes, the present system should not be referred to as an example of a minimal hypercycle in the absence of direct experimental evidence for the auto-catalytic cross-coupling between replicators.”
There is a single report on a naturally occurring hypercycle (Eigen et al. 1991). But this example, relating to the infection cycle of an RNA bacteriophage, obviously is not prebiotic – the cycle evolved on the complexity of living beings as template.

You might want to use less jargon in this forum because I for one have no idea what you are talking about or why.

The appendix helps your immune system. You want me to list the reasons, we haven’t discovered any yet, just like we had no reasons for the appendix, until people understood what it was for. The Bible gives a guideline, on how to live a healthy life, but man completely ignores it, because it mentions cutting out foods that we have grown up loving. There are some groups of people today, who have grown up eating the way that the Bible says to, and those people, are some of the healthiest people on the planet. They do not get cancer or other diseases. The Hallelujah diet, is a diet that focuses on following God’s food laws in the Bible. Cancer patients, given months or less to live, decided to try the diet, (they had nothing to lose) and not only did the live, but they were cured of the cancer, in a relatively short time period. I am not just speaking of a few people either, there have been a few hundred cancer patients cured, and not just cancer patients but tons of people with other diseases too. http://www.hacres.com/library/testimonies/search
Also when did I not answer your question?

Wouldn’t that be nice if it were true. You see I don’t trust your sources. Lying to forward your biases is just too easy. In science we require evidence that is not tainted by bias. Now when I say lying I am not necessarily saying that intentional untruths are being said. It is at least as likely that the underlying bias has made your sources actually believe what they are saying. Self deception is the easiest because we automatically thrust the source. Science (at least good science) assumes bias exists and goes to great lengths to expose it and compensate for it. Just wanting to believe is a huge bias and requires extreme controls to get to the facts through the fog of bias.
Scientists don’t do multiple controls and double blind studies because we like them. We do them because we don’t trust ourselves any more than we trust creationists.
Murphy is a scientist, whatever can be biased is biased.

I have only just joined this forum and have been rather interested in this thread.
In particular the debate between Jonl1408 and BDDVM.

Jonl1408
You clearly have a confidence in your bible and trust it considerably. May I suggest that when you debate the bible in a science forum you be prepared to debate science not faith.
Now you clearly believe that the God of the bible designed man (indeed everything else) as the bible states. However the bible also states that something else is at play here in that man’s condition has been tampered with, you have only to refer to Hebrews 2:14 to show that death and suffering was not part of the original design.

Now if someone believes the bible account is just a myth, at least you can point to the account as being consistent within itself and it explains the current situation of man.
What I am suggesting is that if you get to know your bible better you would therefore be better prepared to debate with anyone who does not share your belief.

BDVM
I can see you are an educated person and adhere to evolutionary theory, although I am uncertain as to what branch of evolutionary theory you subscribe.
However when you state that
“Only an idiot would have the path of air into the lungs cross the path of food and water into the stomache.” I feel you are being more than a little arrogant.

May I suggest you check out the actual design of the human respiratory system and it’s control, perhaps here
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Human_Phys … ory_system and inform how you would modify the system away from idiocy.

Please keep in mind that vague statements about the superior system of the birds is just simple rhetoric unless design detail accompanies your comments.

Some requested details which I’m afraid will be somewhat longwinded for this forum.
To improve the human respiratory system ( without a major overhaul) simply move the esophagus in front of (anterior to) the trachea so the air pathway and the food/water pathway don’t cross each other.
Avian respiratory anatomy and physiology is kind of complicated but I’ll give it a shot. The windpipe opens at the base of the tongue where debris isn’t trapped easily like the back of our pharynx. A system of air sacs then direct air through the lung in only one direction which keeps incoming air from mixing with outgoing air thus greatly increasing oxygen transfer efficiency. It’s actually a very cool system. If you watch a bird inhale and then exhale the air you see coming out was not the air that was just inhaled, it’s the air that was inhaled the time before. If a bird was smoking the smoke would come out a breath later than expected. If we had this level of oxygen transfer efficiency we could likely run 3 minute miles. I’m just saying that for an intelligent designer the designs look like they were put together without much intelligence.

And why would that be? There are countless design that would work better than what we have. Anything that you can imagine where respiratory and food ingestion system are separate. teh point is if it evolved it somehow makes sense for the 2 system to have ended up that way, however absurd and unnecessarily complicated and failure prone it is, but if it had been designed from scratch with even a modicum of intelligence separation of the system would be part of the design requirement.
In fact as with many things there is no need for our body to have all those design quirks that are proving to be annoying (design of our spine, absence of protection of the sensitive abdominal area, excretion and reproduction system sharing conduits…) unless you consider that they evolved from preexisting structures that constrained them so much that a better design was not possible. The problem with (un)intelligent design hypothesis is that it completely fails to explain why if we have been designed, those major problems have not been taken in consideration from the start.

BDVM

Thanks very much for your response. It is certainly educational and appreciated.
I am also glad you have modified the language of your critique in the comparison between the bird/ human respiratory and digestive systems.

I understand the nub of your argument but feel it is a view that is rather simplistic and I don’t mean this in any derogative sense.

In my question to you I deliberately referred to control of the systems, those that which are housed in different parts of the brain. You have simply sought to focus on the mechanics of the systems.

Although there are common functionalities between the two systems the fact is that the human system is far more elaborate and indeed versatile. We have only to examine the taste and vocal abilities of the two to appreciate that one is more sophisticated than the other.

The epiglottis is the flap of cartilage located at the opening to the larynx.
During swallowing, the larynx closes to prevent swallowed material from entering the lungs, the larynx is also pulled upwards to assist this process. Stimulation of the larynx by ingested matter produces a strong cough reflex to protect the lungs.
You rightly refer to choking that occurs when the epiglottis fails to cover the trachea, and food becomes lodged in our windpipe.

The closing of the larynx during swallowing indicates anticipation does it not?

I would argue that this is not a matter of faulty design but one of faulty maintenance.

The two systems operate in two different environments and have different purposes while having some common functions.

I don’t see why should one system be considered the product of idiot design and the other not.

Now canalon raises a good question and I will respond in my next post shortly.

I don’t actually believe an idiot designed anything. Evolution did it. The fact that our bodies seem bodgered together is just what you would expect from such a simple and often imprecise process.
Those who advocate the scientific theory of Creationism or Intelligent design must explain why these problems exist (every single one of them). Furthermore their explainations must be consistent with their definition of the creator/ designer.
No fair claiming god created evolution while saying evolution didn’t happen.
Incidentally, part of the nerve supply to the larynx , the recurrent laryngeal nerve, is another example of Rube Goldburg type design.
The nerve starts as a cranial nerve , XI ? I don’t recall exactly. Anyway it starts at he base of the skull and heads south, goes right past the larynx, loops around the base of the heart and ends up at he larnyx. This path makes it one of the longest periferal nerves in the body. Unfortunately periferal nerves have to get all their nutrition and metabolites to the ends of their axons through those axons. This becomes increasingly difficult as those axons get longer. In dogs at least this often leads to the nerve becoming damaged with age to the point that about once a month I see an old dog that can’t open the larynx to inhale. A 50cm nerve that wears out where a much more healthy 10cm nerve would work fine. Not intelligent, evolutionary baggage.

canalon

When you used the term evolved I assume (correct me if I am wrong) you refer to random variation followed by natural selection i.e. (survival, mate-finding, reproduction)

Now for the moment lets stick with the respiratory/digestive system mentioned as evidence of as you put it (un)intelligent design.

Did you know (perhaps you do) that our mouths can only distinguish 5 different tastes, sweet, salt, sour, bitter and umami (or savouriness).

But you also know that when we enjoy a really good meal we are definitely not limited to those 5 tastes.

So what’s going on?

The other flavours (as distinct from the term taste) is detected by flavour molecules stimulating our olfactory glands in the nose. (part of the respiratory system)

Try the following experiment to see this in action:
Take a piece of any strong flavoured food (say cheese or garlic), hold your nose and put it on your tongue and rub it against the roof of your mouth.

What can you detect? probably just salt or one of the other 4 taste sensations.
Now let your nose go and breath in as you taste (part of the digestive system) the morsel of food, suddenly the flavours erupt in your mouth and nose. 

Everything we smell in life comes from these 5 atoms.
carbon
nitrogen
hydrogen
oxygen
sulphur

These 5 atoms form into different molecules and molecules vibrate at different frequencies and a spectroscope can analyse the vibrations and determine what the molecule is.

We smell molecular vibrations( according to theory), now the fly in the ointment is that if you looked up the nose of the person next to you what you would not see is a spectroscope. 🙂

Birds have an acute sense of taste. Taste is used to help avoid harmful foods. Sensory receptors inside the bird’s mouth detect sweet, salt, sour (acid), and bitter tastes. Sensitivity to each of these tastes differs from species to species.
http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/inf … senses.htm

The sense of taste is part of their survival package.

Do birds enjoy the full flavour as humans do? The answer is no. One major reason is that the sense of taste and smell do not combine as they do in humans. (separate systems as we are informed)

The point I make is this
This highly developed combination of senses in Humans is clearly not a requirement for survival, findng a mate or reproduction ie Natural Selection.

So the obvious question is why do we posses this quality and not birds.The only good reason I can come up with is pleasure.

Now where does pleasure play a part in natural selection. I don’t know, can anyone educate me please.

To combine the two systems far from being an example of bad design is a excellent example of good design, if only for the reason it adds pleasure to what is otherwise an essential requirement.

I could take up your other points (design of our spine, absence of protection of the sensitive abdominal area, excretion and reproduction system sharing conduits…) but perhaps we could move on to them later

BDDVM
I know you don’t believe an idiot designed anything.

But before we go any further I would like to make one thing clear. I am neither a creationist nor an advocate of the ID community.

I have made a study of the various denominations of evolutionary thinking, and there are several, and all coming up with separate ideas.

I have similarly made a study of the bible though not the Qu’ran and the religious churches of Christendom and Islam again come up with different ideas, each one claiming they are right.

Science is my interest.
Science in my opinion should not be tied to any philosophy.

Getting past my bedtime now so must conclude for the time being.

Now I don’t get hung up on terminology. When I see design I see it for what it is –Design. I don’t need to prefix it with adjectives such as “Intelligent” as the ID community does or “Apparent” as Richard Dawkins does.

How did this design come about? Well I don’t see this has been answered by science.
We haven’t even been able to explain what life is so how can science know how it came about. If it came about by supernatural means then science will never be able to answer it.

Science however can explain how it could not have come about.

So when you claim that that it is the result of evolutionary process then I need to pin you down to explain which evolutionary theory you are subscribing to, as there are many.

With respect you have not answered that yet.

Could you possibly answer that question please.

Pleasure is evolutions way of rienforcing decisions that make you more likely to live and reproduce. Generally, apples taste good and feces, decayed meat etc taste (and smell) bad. Incidentally there are exceptions as one would expect in a process that takes at least one generation to eliminate deliterious variations. Some people can’t resist feces and other not so healthy dietary choices.
Some of these preferences are learned, some are inate and adjusted by learning and some are inate.
I have been accused of offering simplistic answers to these questions.
In science, simple answers are prefered.

Scotty I am sorry, I don’t know what you mean by denominations of evolutionary thinking. Could you name a few. Also I’m not sure of your point about the sense of smell/taste in birds. Birds in general have poor sense of both taste and smell. Flight makes smells hard to track and places a premium on eyesight. Food is generally identified visually and is very inflexible. Once a bird starts eating sunflower seeds it’s difficult to get them to even try a food with a different appearence. Even ground sunflower seeds.

My answer is simple: WRONG.
The design is essentially bad and over complicated. The fact that there is a silver lining to that does not make it any better. If the fact that Windows Millenium Edition was so buggy that it required almost monthly reinstall limited the usual accumulation of crap in the registry, it did not make it a better OS than windows 98. 😆
There are countless way to make the 2 systems communicate and do that more safely if you can design it from scratch. Or to have the olfactive system actually located in the mouth (like snakes) or to make the tongue more sensitive. This is a clunky design that was born of randomness and necessity while nature’s tinkering where constrained by the preexisting.
And in fact no amount of rationalisation is convincing: Bad design is bad design whatever later improvment come afterwards. Human have the ribcage of tetrapods, in spite of being bipedals; our larynx and excretion system should not have been connected the way they are if they had been designed. But there never was design or intent, just random tinkering and selection, and a bit of serendipity. Look at the thumb of the panda (and read S.J. Gould’s book by the same name, and most of his other book, they are worth it) and many other examples in nature and all we can see is Chance and necessity (Thank you J. Monod).

How have emerged and have become sensible ones membrane-ids, which for many billions of years ago, have built a peptide-nucleic super-technology – is an open question. But how do these membranoidy appeared on Earth – we can explore …
http://translate.google.com/translate?h … .agro.name
And the dream! http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=4904

Leopol, I don’t know if your post was nonsense before it was translated but it’s certainly nonsense now.

BDDVM

Denominations
Let me try and explain.
(1) There is the modern Standard Theory of Evolution which essentially states .. well
here is a good description from:-
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution.htm

Evolution and the Tree of Life
The modern theory of evolution is based on two primary tenets:
All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors), have developed from other species, and all life forms have a single common ancestor.
The origin of a new species results from random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in an advantage to survive and reproduce are more likely to be retained and propagated than mutations that do not result in a survival to reproduce advantage.
The great Tree of Life is real. It is a phylogenetic tree representing the unique ancestral history of each and every creature. Darwin believed that all creatures on Earth might have originated from a single common ancestor so that each species through geological history fit somewhere in an overarching metaphorical tree;

(2) From Wikipedia ( I am always cautious about using wiki but in this case they have it about right.)
Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most sexually reproducing species will experience little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. Punctuated equilibrium also proposes that stasis is broken up by rare and rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which species split into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.
Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr’s theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner’s theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Two opposing views on one of the fundamental pillars of of Darwinian theory.

Another fundamental pillar of Darwinian theory is the notion of Common decent. (Tree of life) as explained above.
(3) Carl Woese and others like Craig Venter disagree fundamentally with this concept.
He describes this as “the doctrine of common decent” and is wrong. There is no tree of life, if any such analogy is to be used then a bush or forest would be more appropriate.

Again on one of the fundamental pillars of the standard theory there is disagreement.

So here briefly are three different theories but there are more.

I could relate Jim Shipiro’s Natural Genetic Engineering view which he states is the third way between Creationism and Darwinism.
Or Simon Conway Morris who argues against Gould and Darwin in that evolution far from being quirky and unpredictable is essentially front loaded in that the evolutionary routes are many but the destinations are few.

Or Lynn Margolis... ….I think I had better leave it there in case everyone starts dozing off. 🙂

The reason I use the term denominations is because each theory has it’s own doctrinal fundamentals and the fact that the adherents of one disagree with another, often with a vitriol that smacks of a sort of religious fervour, paints a picture for me.

Does evolution happen? It most certainly does and we have the evidence all around us.
What does that evidence show, well quite simply that all this evolution occurs within species.

Does it produce new species. Well I am waiting for anyone to demonstrate that with evidence and not speculation.

If anyone believes that speciation occurs through evolution by whatever formal theory, I have no problem with that.

It becomes a problem when that belief system is presented a fact.

I hope this clears up some of my points.

btw my comment about birds having a keen sense of taste is actually a quote from the Orlando’s sea world website, I gave the link in my response to canolan, here it is again
http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/inf … senses.htm
Scroll down to Taste.

Thanks

But other forum participants such translation is acceptable. "Polypeptide-nucleic nano-technology that underpins life on Earth – is ancient and efficient engineering. Multicellularity as an engineering design, just not as ancient."

I am a molecular geneticist, in addition, cytology in oncology. These conclusions are based on extensive experience in the Biological Institute.

canolan

Well I may be wrong, but you have chosen a rather curious way to try to demonstrate your point.
I assume that of the “countless ways” to make two systems communicate and do it more safely one way would be to take a lesson from the snake ie locate the olfactory system in the mouth and make the tongue more sensitive.

You are aware are you not that the snake requires two senses of smell. One which involves the olfactory system located in the nose (not in the mouth as you have stated) and the other, the vomeronasal system that is associated with the constantly flicking tongue, which incidentally has no taste buds.This system is used in conjunction with the standard sense of smell possibly because the their rate of breathing does not allow the air to enter the nostrils fast enough to collect and translate scent particles in the normal way.

I would suggest that just a cursory examination of the needs of the two (humans and snakes) explains the two different systems and in my subjective opinion as opposed to your subjective opinion there is nothing “clunky” about either system.

However a far more fundamental point is at issue here.
You contend that the human sense of taste and smell evolved from preexisting structures that constrained them so much that a better design was not possible.

This raises two questions which I would appreciate you clarify
(1)From what lineages were these preexisting structures inherited?
(2)Can you provide the evidence for this please.

Finally you are clearly using a designed piece of software to demonstrate how something can’t be designed because of design flaws. Am I right in assuming that this is the logic you are using to support you point, or am I missing a trick somewhere?

I have read Stephen Gould quite extensively, I would be happy to discuss his book(s) later if you wish.

Thanks

sorry canalon for spelling error

Not sure if posts can be edited for such mistakes

Scotty,
Where you see differences in doctrinal fundamentals I see differences in detail. The arguements you site are akin to whether ionic or doric collumns are better. They are both collumns.
As for the vitreol and furvor you see in science are simply explained by the fact that humans are involved. Science is not devoid of bias but we make an effort to understand and mitigate those biases.
If you espouse faith as a tool toward fact I would suggest it’s a tool with a very poor record.
After all, If you have enough faith you can believe anything.
As for my current understanding ( I avoid having beliefs, they are too hard to abandon when better evidence is presented) I see the tree of life as being very likely. One or a small handful of projenitors.
Punctuated equalibrium vs gradualism? It depends on the situation(niche).
Some situations cause fast change, some, don’t change and some change gradually.
If you want to get a feel for real time evolutionary change I would suggest you read "The Beak of The Finch" by Jonathan Weiner
about the Grants study of Finches in The Galopagos.
It’s not overly technical so the main theme comes through well.

BDDVM
Sorry for the delay but I am a bit tied up on other matters and have not been able to get back to my computer.

I will get back and respond tomorrow just as soon as I am free.
I appreciate this discussion very much because a respectful exchange of ideas and thoughts is always refreshing.

I will try to explain my point of view in order not to be misunderstood.

To me science and faith are two different concepts.
Science is limited to natural laws and any explanation must be confined within the limits of known natural laws.

Now Darwin proposed a theory or model that explained the Origin of Species. Now because it could be tested within the confines of Natural laws it is a valid scientific theory simply because it can be falsified.
He introduced the concept of Natural selection acting on random variation on given species that over time gradually change into another and different species. So this process can be tested and indeed has and continues to be.

If I state that species arrived by an act(s) of a God i.e. by supernatural means then that statement cannot be tested in a scientific way and therefore cannot be regarded as a scientific theory,
That is a belief system that I would be adhering to.

Belief can and often is simply blind and doesn’t require evidence.

Faith on the other hand is something more than belief.
Faith should be based on evidence which maybe directly observed or by strong circumstantial evidence.
In a court for example a person may be convicted of murder although no one actually witnessed the crime but other evidence allows the jury to conclude that the crime was committed by that person.

So faith and belief are in themselves two different concepts although they are very very often used as synonyms.

Now I don’t argue from a point of belief, nor indeed in matters of science do I argue from a point of faith.

What I will try and explain tomorrow is why I argue the way I do, not from a standpoint of belief or faith but from the standpoint of corroborating evidence, because this is a science forum.

Now I prepare my self the popcorn and will settle in the seat and I am waiting impatiently to see the evidence for the existence for god and its implication in creation being presented. The trailer is good, I hope that the main feature will be up to the task. 8)

Scotty,
I think your definitions of faith and belief might be peculiar to you. In common usage faith refers to beliefs instilled by authority without evidence beyond the word of the authority. As a recovering catholic I can recount first hand the "because God said so" argument. Belief simply refers to ones understanding of reality regardless of how it came about.
To argue another point, I feel that theology is a fine topic for science.
The scientific process is the best tool we have to get to the truth. It isn’t perfect but it’s the best we have come up with yet.
Besides, it was the creationists who claimed that they were scientists.

Sorry for the delay but life is a bit hectic at the moment.

Ok
The theories of evolution attempt to describe the process by which species arrive.

Now because we are discussing process it is important to understand which process you are subscribing to, as there are various differing theories.

Hence my question as to which theory (process)you subscribe to.
Since you have refrained to address the question I will assume you subscribe to the
first of my descriptions I presented you with, i.e. the Darwinian concept of decent from a single common ancestor. This process of decent being by random mutations within the genetic mechanism and sifted by Natural selection. The whole process operates by the gradual accumulation of changes to produce new species.
(If I am wrong please correct me.)

Let me try and explain my understanding.
The cell is a highly regulated biological information processing system that produces function. By it’s very nature this system is governed by the laws of information theory. Three essential ingredients are required.
A coding system using symbols — the cell has that
A decoding system recognising those symbols —- the cell has that
And a channel for communication— the cell has that.

This system uses the physical laws (physics, chemistry etc) to provide this function.

Now you appear to have indicated that I concentrate on “doctrine” and you on detail.
I am at a loss to understand how you could draw that conclusion, however lets look at some detail of the cell.

In order for a eukaryotic organism to develop and form, cell division takes place.
There are various stages to this cell cycle.

The cell contains several control mechanisms that are referred to as checkpoints and these come into action at various stages of the cycle.

These control mechanisms by their very nature check and verify whether the processes that led up to the particular stage are accurately completed before allowing progression to the next stage.

An important function of many checkpoints is to assess DNA damage.
When damage is found, the checkpoint uses a signal mechanism either to stall the cell cycle until repairs are made or, if repairs cannot be made, to target the cell for destruction via another mechanism.

Now this is but a very small part of the control the cell exercises before it divides, but it is enough to reveal some fundamental points.

(1) DNA damage (which is at the heart of Darwinian theory for speciation) is identified at virtually every stage in cell division and it is either repaired or it is passed on for destruction, except in some special situations. This demonstrates that decisions are being made by the cell, by way of biological algorithms, to eliminate the damage. Damage in the cell is regarded as noise in an information processing system which of course the cell is. Now engineers devote great time and effort to eliminate or at least reduce noise in any system, simply because noise corrupts information. Is it not strange that the very thing that corrupts information is being regarded as one of the fundamental driving forces of evolutional theory, of whatever shade?

(2) Decision points or nodes like this, and there are several in the cell, where the process is directed one way or another cannot come about by chance because natural laws do not work this way. Laws are discovered because endless amounts of dynamic data can be reduced down into mathematical formula, and the reason this can be done is because the behaviour pattern being examined is highly ordered, fixed, and low in information. However degrees of freedom is exactly what is required by the cell systems in living organisms. So not even some yet undiscovered law can address this issue.

(3) This is simply why I recognise design in biology. It has nothing to do with doctrine or belief or faith. It is about science.

Now the argument has been put forward that bad design is evidence of randomness.
However bad design can only be an example of bad design.

Randomness cannot produce the prescriptive design we see in the cell. It is not scientifically possible.

The analogy of the Panda’s Thumb sadly is the perpetuation of this myth.

In 1978 Stephen Gould proposed this as an example of bad design to support his view that bad design is evidence of randomness. However he did not fully understand what he was examining, because he did not have the technology available to examine thoroughly.
Some 20 years later however around 1998 and as technology had greatly advanced, his idea was put to the test and was found wanting.
You will find the paper in Nature (peer reviewed of course) here
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 … 309a0.html
This is how the abstract reads
“The way in which the giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, uses the radial sesamoid bone — its ‘pseudo-thumb’ — for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The bone has been reported to function as an active manipulator, enabling the panda to grasp bamboo stems between the bone and the opposing palm2,6, 7, 8. We have used computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and related techniques to analyse a panda hand. The three-dimensional images we obtained indicate that the radial sesamoid bone cannot move independently of its articulated bones, as has been suggested1, 2, 3, but rather acts as part of a functional unit of manipulation. The radial sesamoid bone and the accessory carpal bone form a double pincer-like apparatus in the medial and lateral sides of the hand, respectively, enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity. (my emphasis)”

The panda has specific needs (stripping bark off bamboo for some 12 hours a day is not an activity normally associated with other mammals)
This is good design and therefore hardly an icon of bad design.

Canalon

By the way I am not trying to prove the existence of anything except design.
You should not presume to ascribe motives to me. Don’t demonstrate fear of discussing science by trying to turn it towards some form of religion.

Now how much pop corn do you have?
Why not put it to good use and investigate evidences of Good design in Nature that science learns from.

As the Whale turns
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/biomec … hale-turns
Read the whole article you will learn something but here is a taster.
“The Humpback Whale….
And underwater, the animals move with such astonishing agility that they’ve caught the attention of naval engineers, who hope that some of the principles learned from the study of the humpback’s flippers can be applied to designing submersible vehicles of unprecedented maneuverability.”

How about Heat exchanger Design
Here is an acknowledgement from by Arthur P Fraas in his book “Heat Exchanger Design”
You will find some extracts here
http://books.google.com/books?id=rdtKXC … &q&f=false

On page 2 he says
“ It is interesting to note that nature presents us with one of the best examples of a highly efficient counterflow system in the blood vessel system in the legs of wading birds such as herons. The warm blood moving outward into the leg from the heart is passed through a system of tiny parallel blood vessels that are interspersed in checkerboard fashion with similar vessels returning from the extremity of the birds leg, giving one of the worlds most effective regenerative heat exchangers. The heat transfer performance of this blood vessel configuration is so good that the warm blood is cooled almost to the ambient temperature before reaching the region immersed in cold water, and thus the bird loses relatively little heat through the skin of it’s leg.”

These are but a couple of examples of design that scientists and engineers look to, when designing their machines. I could go on about the seagull’s wings, the low drag design of the boxfish that the concept car imitates, the shock-absorbing properties of the abalone shells, or the sonar in dolphins etc etc.

So many good ideas have come from nature that researchers have established a database that already catalogs thousands of different biological systems so that scientists can search this database to find natural solutions to their design problems.

http://www.economist.com/node/4031083?story_id=4031083

The June 9th 2005 edition of the Economist reports .. in part

“This process is entirely the wrong way round, says Dr Vincent. “To be effective, biomimetics should be providing examples of suitable technologies from biology which fulfil the requirements of a particular engineering problem,” he explains. That is why he and his colleagues, with funding from Britain’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, have spent the past three years building a database of biological tricks which engineers will be able to access to find natural solutions to their design problems. A search of the database with the keyword “propulsion”, for example, produces a range of propulsion mechanisms used by jellyfish, frogs and crustaceans.”

Now if Bad design is evidence of randomness as you argue to then do tell
What is Good design evidence of?

I would say Non-randomness, wouldn’t you or would your theology prevent that conclusion?

Got any pop corn left? 🙂

Scottie,
Bad design is not evidence of randomness, it’s evidence of design by a non omnicient, non omnipotent designer.Its evidence of a design process that has limits in how perfect it can be because it has to start with designs that are preexisting.
As for randomness not producing the designs we see in the cell. You seem to forget that only part of the process of evolution is random.
The selection process brutally removes all organisms that don’t fit into an available niche.
An analogy, Obviously it’s impossible for an industrial paint sprayer to paint the greek alphabet in 1” letters on a wall. ( the sprayer paints only a blast of paint 3ft wide) Unless you first mask off all of the wall that isn’t shaped like the greek alphabet. This makes a stencel that removes all the paint that doesn’t fit in the niche. Random paint, non random niche. In life the niche tends to be constantly changeing as well as the organisms that are fit in it.
Variation (Random changes to current design) Selection (non random removal of designs that aren’t fitting) Reproduction. repeat a few quadrillion times.

Now if you walk into a room and see the greek alphabet on the wall in 1 inch letters you can’t say that a random process wasn’t involved.
You might say it appears that someone painted it on with a brush or it might have been done with a stensel. To determine which it was just look closely. A brush will leave brush strokes. The sprayer will show stippled paint and overspray.
We are just saying that the often half baked bodged together designs we see in nature look like paint sprayer evidence not masterful brushstrokes.
(awesome metaphore if I do say so myself)

BDDVM
Sorry for the delay. I have been away for a few days.

I think you have misunderstood me.
It’s not me that is suggesting bad design is evidence of randomness.
This idea has been put out by canalon and you appear to agree with him.

I was merely responding to his assertion. He appears not to answer any questions his assertions raise. So they are coming over as statements of doctrine, and I get very suspicious of doctrinaire pronouncements, because they invariably lack evidence or logic.

When you say

With respect there is nothing random at all about the cell process. I have explained, and any text book or peer reviewed paper will concur that as a fact.

More than that I have also explained that any mistakes in copying are corrected before cell division takes place.

Random mutations cannot produce the feedback processes we see in the cell. If you say they do then surely it is incumbent on you to show evidence of that.

I am arguing that only design accounts for what we observe in the cell. You keep presuming that I am trying to bring religion into science.

Why?

After all my 13 year old grandson studies Design Technology in class and it is not a religious school.
Design is a perfectly valid scientific topic.

Is it your contention that unless the cell arrived by random mutations of the genetic material followed by natural selection, any other explanation must be religiously based.

Could you please clarify your position.

First all mutations are not repaired, most are repaired, a few kill the cell and an extremely tiny fraction give the cell something it didn’t have before.
It might be your use of the term design that is confusing me. When you say design do you imply a designer that is an entity?
The process of evolution is a design process without an entity guiding it.
This design process has actually been used recently to design robots and some software.
Random processes (Mutation) can result in feedback systems in cells. A well studied system is called the lac operon. It’s a bacterial system for regulating when certain DNA segments are expressed and when they aren’t. Because it is such a simple system it takes less imagination to see how it evolved.
It is not my contention that designer based explainations are religeously based. It is however consistent with all my previous experience.

Yes the cell proof reading catches most errors and corrects them. Only rarely, as in such cases as in cancer will a new mutation lead to a phenotype so dramatic that we will realise that something new has happened. Note of course that the new mutation is invariably deleterious. At best these mutations are neutral.

Is there any mutation observed that has resulted in beneficial phenotypic change? If so
Could you please point me to any peer reviewed paper to confirm that.

btw. please think for a moment, do natural laws proof read for errors?

The best way for me to answer that is by referring to the lac operon that you cite
as an example this way

Firstly to suggest that this is a simple system so that less imagination is required, I find quite astonishing.
May I suggest you review the actual operation of this lac operon. Here is a good visual of what it does and how.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/olc/dl/120080/bio27.swf

If bacteria encounter two sugars, e.g. glucose and lactose, then E. coli cells will keep the lac operon turned down as long as glucose is present. It is not appropriate if glucose is still available, because E. coli cells metabolize glucose more easily than lactose, it would therefore be wasteful in energy for them to activate the lac operon in the presence of glucose.

This operon is therefore described as a combination of switches, and that is exactly what it is.
Now switches are decision nodes that allow a process to go one way or another depending on what the circumstances require.

There is nothing simple about this system. It requires informational signalling from both within and without the cell. That symbolic signalling determines which switch sequence to turn on or off and when, along with energy saving decisions

We see algorithmic commands such as START, STOP, AND, OR, ELSE and so on
in operation. These things are never seen in natural laws.

We still don’t understand how these genes come to grouped in the way they are on the genome except that this grouping is definitely non random, as a clear understanding of the operon shows.

So this is not haphazard design at work. This is clearly design to cater for different energy sources, functioning with a definite purpose in mind.

It is definitely not a simple system

However by way of comparison lets consider the circular settings of the large upright stones at Stonehenge in England. Some of these massive stones have equally massive cross member stones perched on top.

How did this massive configuration come about?
Does anyone believe that is was the result of natural forces?
And why not ?— after all we have seen for ourselves how in the recent tsunami heavy vehicles being perched on top of buildings in a matter of minutes demonstrating that natural forces do have the capacity to deposit heavy structures on top of others.

But we don’t believe these came about naturally, because we recognise functional design in the configuration. It is simple and it could even be argued that it is not a very good design. Still we attribute it to an outside agency. We don’t know who that outside agency was but yet in the science of archaeology it is carefully studied and accepted that outside agency is definitely involved.

Now can science identify a designer? Well the simple answer is that science cannot.
A historical record can, but that is not a scientific topic.
Also a historical record may or may not be true.

Now

The Churches of Christendom claim that their Triune creator did it.
The Islamic churches claim that their creator did it.
The Hindus claim their creator(s) did it.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster claims their creator did it, and so on.

These are simply belief systems and therefore cannot be falsifiable in the scientific sense and therefore are not subjects for scientific debate, even though many try to make it so.

However the creator we call decent with modification by random mutations/natural selection claims to be scientific and not a belief system.
Therefore it must be, by it’s very definition, falsifiable.

Please ask yourself this question
Why are there so many different theories about the origin of species i.e. macro evolution?

The answer must be because each theory is simply not fitting the evidence, an essential requirement of any scientific theory.

Just about every facet of evolutionary theory is being falsified time and time again.
This is not a dogmatic statement because the peer-reviewed material is abundant showing this to be so. The interesting point about this material is that most of it is coming from the evolutionary community itself.

I am quite happy to point you to any necessary papers to confirm my argument.

First, falsefiable doesn’t mean false. It means a theory that can be tested. If I say, Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. That is falsefiable. You just have to look. Anyone who wants to can look for themselves.
If you say, God just talked to me and told me that I am the new Pope therefore all that cool stuff in the Vatican belongs to me. That isn’t falsefiable. God only talks to me, sorry.
You appear to have a common problem among creationists. A very limited imagination. I have little choice but to assume you are in the creationist mindset as you dodged my question about an entity designer.
The lac operon has only a handful of parts, non of which will mean instant death if it’s missing. Once the bits of the system finally get together in the same E coli it gives a very nice advantage of not wasting recources on lactose metabolic machinery when it’s not needed. It’s just a few mutations. No need to get God involved. Just give the little beasties some time.
I’ve often wondered why God tells his chosen people that they are chosen but neglects to tell everyone else.

As for Origen of species. First you have to realise that the concept of species itself is a human construct. There, I said it, I think it’s kind of a red herring. Many will argue with this. That’s fine, It doesn’t mean that we need a God to explain life. It’s another of those detail arguments that some would use to invalidate all of Biology.
As for just about every aspect of evolutionary theory being falsefied, Well to put it cordially, Male Bovid Feces.
If you want to see selection,reproduction, mutation happen in a short period of time. You can do it yourself. Petri dish, bacterial culture, pick an antibiotic, apply it to the plate for a while. What you will see is a large percentage of the initial population die off and are replaced by a new population of bacteria that are more resistant to the antibiotic in question. (unfortunately they will likely also get resistant to several other antibiotics due to how a lot of bacteria share resistance factors).
If you don’t believe this happens I would invite you to take good old fashioned penicillin for your next staph infection.
As you appear to have about the average amount of preexisting bias about this experiments outcome I would suggest you team up with someone who will be able to counter your conscious and unconscious biases with appropriate controls. (scientific method)

Thank you for your two posts
Let me start by responding to the first.

You are actually making my point for me.
For a theory to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable and if evidence is produced to rebut the theory then the theory must be abandoned or at least modified.

However when I present valid scientific arguments that the theory does not and indeed cannot explain, you launch into anti-religious rhetoric. You don’t even know what my belief system is or even if I have one. I have no idea what all this "chosen people" rhetoric is all about

So can we just stick to science please.

You stated that the lac operon is a simple example of evolution.

In fairness you have tried to expand upon that by adding

Firstly, and with great respect, that does not even begin to explain how some pre existing structure whatever it may have been, came to be, what is known as the lac operon.

It’s just a few mutations you say. Is that really the best “scientific” explanation you can come up with?
Simply stating that a few mutations did it is frankly no different the “god did it argument”.

Secondly lac operon is evidence of the system’s built in redundancy that enables E coli to exist on different energy sources.
Redundancy in any system is evidence of forward planning and which is of course evidence of design.

Random mutation by their very nature cannot forward plan.

Another biological fact you need to appreciate is that mutations invariably are deleterious, at best neutral, to the organism. There has been enough experimental evidence over the past at least 60 or so years, to establish that point.

If you wish I will point you some of the research that has been carried out.

Beneficial mutations –

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16396175

http://www.csun.edu/~sd51881/readings/E … l_1996.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2411188

How duplication and preservation increases the chances of beneficial mutation while preserving original function (something that would look to the uneducated like "forward planning") –

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article … 101175.pdf

That took all of 5 minutes searching.

Thanks Darby

At last someone has decided to engage in some real science.
I was beginning to wonder if the anti-religious flow towards me was ever going to change to genuine science. So once again thanks

Firstly this discussion is in relation to origin of species not the evolution within species which no one that I am aware of disputes.
As I understand it even the creationists recognise this fact.

You claim it took you about 5 minutes to locate these papers, but did it take you 5 minutes to actually read them.

Please point me to any one of them that shows how a new species has emerged.
All these mutations observed did not produce any new species.

Did any of the beneficial mutations produce phenotypic change required for a new species?
I think you already know the answer to that.

Two of these papers includes the very good work of Richard Lenski with some collegues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16396175
and
http://www.csun.edu/~sd51881/readings/E … l_1996.pdf

Now the latter is particularly interesting, however you have chosen a more dated paper of Lenski.

This paper from 1996 refers to his experiment with E.coli, but what is pertinent is that the paper in it’s opening paragraph refers to the Stephens Gould / Niles Eldridge theory of punctuated equilibriam to explain the origin of species. They developed this theory in response to the fossil record in Cambrian strata that even Darwin himself acknowledged was a real problem for his theory.

Now I would suggest you read his more recent paper(2008) relating to this experiment that was conducted over more than 22 years and involving some 600,000 generations of E.coli growth in 12 population groups.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008 … t%20al.pdf

And what appears to be his concluding paper on this experiment (2011)
http://www.microbemagazine.org/images/s … 000030.pdf

In the 2008 paper in his concluding comments he asks the question
“Will the Cit and Cit lineages eventually become distinct species?”

Clearly up to that point the answer was no.

Lets move on to 2011 and his accolade to Darwin
Lets again go to his concluding comments relation to his long experiment to show how Darwin’s theory of the origin Species was being supported by his experoiments.
After all these long years of painstaking experimenting he enters what he terms his midlife crisis.
“From Bacteria to Computers,and Back Again
Perhaps it was a midlife crisis: my bacteria were slowing down, and I was looking for some new action. So I had an affair—one that continues today, though with slightly less feverish intensity—with some artificial creatures. Avidians are computer programs that copy their own genomes, and they live in a virtual world that exists inside a computer.”

No new species then.
So he has given up on the real world and goes to a virtual reality.

Your third citation
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2411188
far from showing that random mutations cause new species attempts to demonstrate that these random mutations tend more to immunise species from extinction.. As I read it therefore stasis rather than evolution in the order of the day.

Finally your last citation is simply a hypothesis.
I don’t see how using one hypothesis to support another can be classed as empirical evidence.
I think you will find that things have moved on since 1998

But thanks for your response.
Much appreciated.

Scotty,
In order to see new species you must do a few things. First define species, relatively easy for sexually reproducing organisms, very difficult for bacteria. Bacteria would be nice because of the relatively short time per generation but the definition problem makes this a non starter.
The best place to look would likely be African rift lake Cichlids. They have been spinning off new species at a very fast rate. Still it’s going to likely take 10’s of years.
Another place to look is in a very small system like Darwins finches in the Galopago islands. "The Beak of The Finch" chronicles the Grants’ herculean multiyear study of these finches separating into 3 species during bad years and hybridizing back into one big genetic blob during high rainfall years. It’s quite readable. They actually captured, measured, and followed every single bird on the Island for many years.
I’m still curious about your version of a designer. Please describe, I can’t argue with your beliefs/biases if you won’t define them. Are you ashamed of your beliefs? Incidentally, I find that saying your biases out load helps to see alternatives more clearly. It seems to help take some of the emotion out.
The reason I don’t site peer revieved papers in this forum is that I agree with Albert Einstien when he said (aproximately) You can’t say you understand a theory until you can explain it to your grandmother.

BDDVM
Sorry once again for the delay in responding. I have a very busy life and it does take me away from the forum often for days at a time. I have the weekend ahead so can devote more time to this discussion.

You are right about the need to define species.
Now I can only rely on biologists who provide that definition.
As you say with sexually producing organisms it is fairly well defined.
In the case of bacteria it could perhaps be more subjective.

However I can only take on board what biologists themselves say.
When Richard Lenski who is (was) in the forefront of bacteria investigation in connection with the evolutionary process says quite clearly that no new species had emerged in the course of his investigation, he clearly had a definition in mind.

The E.coli he started with was still E.coli when he concluded.

Now I am familiar with the Grants work.
As far as I am aware all the finches they were studying are sexually reproducing and able to reproduce with each other.
Am I correct?

So,are you saying that finches with different size beaks are now being regarded as different species. Is that correct?

This is how this forum defines species

Now according to this definition are all the finches, that the Grants or indeed Darwin himself studied, of the same species or not?

What you are mistakenly doing is noting variation within a given species depending on environmental conditions and promoting it as evidence of one species changing into another.

The finches still remained finches.
Lenski’s E.coli bacteria still remained E.coli bacteria.

Natural Laws can and do produce design. A good example of this is the snowflake.
This site describes nicely how the design in snowflakes is produced.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/molecules … wflake.htm

So one “version of a designer” is Natural Laws and as the site above shows this design can be explained scientifically.

There is another type of design, for example the cell. The Design clearly seen in it’s operation cannot be explained by natural laws alone. Natural laws are in operation but are controlled by what are referred to as biological algorithms.

Algorithms by their very nature are the product of an outside agency.
So the question is, what is that outside agency?
This is a question that science is simply unable to answer because analytical science can only describe natural phenomena.

So I have two “versions of a designer”. One science can describe and the other science cannot describe.

Now regarding the latter a description of this outside agency must naturally be a matter of belief and not science. That belief can be regarded as a religion or philosophy and therefore cannot be analysed by the scientific method.

Let me remind you that this discussion is about a scientific theory(s).

Now I can understand why you appear to want to move this debate on to belief systems because on a scientific basis the argument for species change (origin) by natural phenomena is being lost.

All the arguments you are putting forward are based on a philosophical approach and not as I am arguing, a scientific one.
Some would regard that as a religious approach.

The reality is, you don’t need to know what I believe, to show that what I state is scientifically incorrect. All you have to do is produce the evidence that rebuts my statements.

So please tell, what are you doing making statements you claim are based on science and in a scientific forum if you are not prepared to support them with any recognised scientific evidence. (Although once again you contradict yourself because you refer to the Grant studies of finches)

btw The standard theory i.e. "decent from a common ancestor by random mutation and natural selection" is quite a simple theory and one that my grandson understands. Not sure about my grandmother!

If something is factual you will be able to show it with evidence, if you cannot then it is a belief .
Why not just admit that what you have been arguing is based on a belief system.
That would be a consistent way of presenting your point.

New species created in lab. May 3 issue Proceedings of National Acadamy of Sciences.
I do not agree that Religeous/ Phylosophical beliefs are beyond the reach of science. If it comes out of someones mouth it’s biased BS until the scientific process has been applied. Even then look at it a couple thousand more times.
I can’t disprove or prove your beliefs if you refuse to tell me what they are. Why? are you ashamed? Worried that you might have to rethink your world view?
This is the strongest, most insideous bias there is. Being emotionally invested in your theory.
To test for this bias, simply immagine how you would feel if someone were to prove to you that your beliefs are wrong.
I know , I know, there is no way to disprove the existence of a deity.
But hypothetically, Say a giant intergallactic spaceship arrived and the inhabitants mentioned that they dropped off some bacteria here 3 billion years ago and were just stopping by to see how things were going.
How would you feel?
The most biased statement ever. "I’m not biased, you are."

Really now you simply need do better than that.

“New species created in Lab”
Hasn’t the obvious struck you?

An outside agency was required for whatever the result was.
That is precisely the nub of my argument relating to species formation.
Don’t you realise you are making my point for me.

I of course assume you are referring to the “Long-term evolution of Pseudomonas in the human host” article. Even the article does not make the claim you are attributing to it. So please at least report these experiments without any philosophical spin to buttress your arguments.

You keep going on about my beliefs, so let’s put you out of your obvious frustation.

Now you have stated you couldn’t not respond to my enquires because you did not understand theory enough to be able to explain it.

So you don’t really understand what you actually believe.

However I understand exactly what I believe.

I believe in the veracity of the Scientific method.

Here is my understanding of this method and I am very clear about it.
The essential elements of a scientific method are :-
Operation – Some action done to the system being investigated
Observation – What happens when the operation is done to the system
Model – A fact, hypothesis, theory, or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment
Utility Function – A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control.

One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the refutability of the model. Another is its simplicity, on the Principle of Parsimony also known as Occam’s razor.

I assume you include your own mouth in this analysis.

I understand your point completely. Your emotions are coming over in a very obvious manner.

I am still waiting. Please keep trying.

Sorry not to have pushed further, but I had to recover from surgery and then had to get back to work. But I will once again try it.

The whole point of the bad design argument is not that bad design is evidence of randomness but that it is evidence of a complete lack of planning, foresight and generally what we call design in nature. See the ancester of bears had a thumb, but they lost it. Then came the Panda and a thumb would have been useful, and instead of taking the old very good design of a thumb, something else had to evolve. But there was no coming back, it had to come from something that was still there in the panda’s genetic toolbox.
The argument is that if there was design, the reliance on necessity and on what is there, instead of what is available in the life’s toolbox in general is proof that there is no overarching design, plan(ner) or anything that can select from what is available at large. And the selection is limited to what is genetically available. That makes sense in the framework of evolutionnary biology, this is stupid if your hypothesize that there is a designer behind things.

And I see that you are using the old Occam’s razor saw a bit down thread. You know the "a designer is a simpler explanation that random accumulation of unlikely event yada yada yada…" kind of argument. Would you care to tell us where the designer comes from? because if there is one, it must come from somewhere, no? And we now have a very interesting recursive loop in the making, that does not appear to be any more probable than random accumulation of rare events followed by selection.

Wrong article, It’s the one about the lizards.
It describes a new species of parthenogenic lizards created by hybridizing two related lizards. This is proof of concept for these lizards producing a plethora of related species, both parthenogenic and sexaully reproducing.
Yes I am Biased. I know that and keep it constantly in mind and pay careful attention to how it feels.
Are you claiming a lack of bias?
So you are telling me that the fact that species have never been seen diverging and the fact that species have now been seen diverging are both arguements for intelligent design?

I take it then you mean this one
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 … he-lab.ars

It describes a new species of parthenogenic lizards created by hybridizing two related lizards.

Here is a clue for you
This article is based on the paper entitled.
“Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species.” By Aracely A. Lutes, Diana P. Baumann, William B. Neaves, and Peter Baumann. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 108. No. 18, May 3, 2011.

Now I could go into the details of the paper, but the obvious stands out so clearly that I don’t need to dig into it, and here is why.

Hybridization is the cross breeding of related organisms within a given species.
It also involves the input of an outside agency (i.e. the researcher) which is what this research experiment is all about.

Has a new species been created?
Let me refer you back to how this forum defines species.
(1)The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.
(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.

The sloppy use of this term species can lead to any amount of slight of hand conclusions, if that is where one wishes to go.

Please read the abstract I have provided here
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/ … 8.abstract

Go to the Materials and Methods of the paper to understand the degree of outside input that was required to arrive at their destination
You notice I use the word destination. Why?
Because there was a purpose to this experiment.

Since when has random mutations had a purpose.
Natural selection even, does not come into play.
Artificial selection however does.

You are trying to use artificial input and artificial selection to prove randomness.
What sort of logic is this?

Of course an outside agency can modify the genetic material of an organism to create a different species. (if of course that agency has the capacity.)

That is my point. It requires an outside agency.

I am arguing for design in biology. I don’t need to preface the word with adjectives, be it (un)intelligent, apparent, good bad or whatever.

The biological algorithms we see operating in the cell fit perfectly within the requirements of analysis by the scientific method.
And algorithms by their very nature are not the product of natural law. They use natural laws towards a specific function or purpose.

Now if you can demonstrate any of the evolutionary models to fit into the scientific method of analysis, then you have a genuine scientific theory.

If you cannot then you have, at best a hypothesis that is not standing the test of the scientific method.

Now in fairness you have declared a bias toward this hypothesis of whatever model and
I don’t have a problem with that and do sincerely respect your viewpoint.

All I ask is that you do not present it as science, because then I have to take issue.

You ask
Are you claiming a lack of bias?

We all could be guilty of having a bias.
What sticking to the scientific method does in any analysis, is to remove any bias.

Now if you can show me where I have strayed outside the scientific method in any analysis
I have presented I will correct it.

I have no problem in being corrected. I have found through experience, that being corrected is one of the best forms of learning.

Your definition of hybrid is wrong. To be a hybrid the parents must be different species. (again we have the species definition to contend with).
and it does happen in nature. The new species isn’t the same as either of the parent species and is self replicating.
If it’s not a new species created by means common in nature, what is it?
Obviously, this is kind of a back door way to create a new species but it is a way that can be accomplished in a short time and is therefore amenable to recreation in the lab.
As I said it’s a proof of concept showing that this group of related lizards could have arisen by simple hybridization.
As for how selection takes place, natural, sexual,domestication, they all work to shape the gene pool. Arguments about which takes precidence I think are silly semantics. Selection is Selection.
Could be guilty of bias? No No No. Always bias, all day every day.
There are still a huge number of people who believe President Obama was not born in Hawaii despite the documentary proof they asked for. As soon as you think you are unbiased then bias has you in it’s insideous grasp.
The hallmark of bias is the inability to take in information that would endanger the comfortable world view that creates the bias. You litterally have to make an effort to see the evidence.

canalon

Sorry to hear about your surgery, I do hope you are on a good trajectory back to full health.

I understand the argument you are making but it lacks coherence.
Let me explain

You appear to completely ignore any evidence that does not fit your ideas.
The analogy of the “Panda’s thumb” is sheer nonsense and although being refuted is still being perpetuated as evidence of as you now put it of a complete lack of planning, foresight and generally what we call design in nature.

Now really please read the paper if you haven’t taken the trouble already.
You will find the paper in Nature (peer reviewed of course) here
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 … 309a0.html

(my emphasis)”
The panda has specific needs (stripping bark off bamboo for some 12 hours a day is not an activity normally associated with other mammals)
If the panda evolved as you describe ( I will come back to this later) of what better use would the ordinary thumb be over the ‘pseudo-thumb’. Can you explain?

The environment, the diet and the eating habit of the panda required forward planning and foresight as you say and that is what we see.
But it is not just this digit that is evidence of forward planning for particular diet and eating habits.
Here is a description of the digestive system you will find here
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?it … ubcatid=68
 

No forward planning eh. It’s all randomness is it?
Now let me come on to this idea of common decent.

You say

This is just sheer speculation and you know it.
If I were to ask you ( but I wont because you not not be able to give me one) who or what was this ancestor of the bears, you would not be able to give one.
Why?
Because there is no evidence for this.

This idea of a common ancestor is based on a Doctrine that has run it’s course and is now being rejected by some of the most prominent biologists.

Among such ones as Carl Woese and many many others there is Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, and National Institutes of Health
Koonin is widely regarded and is certainly at the center of the scientific establishment.
In 2007 he presented a paper which is online here
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21

It is entitled
"The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution."
May I urge you to read it please and not continue to be taken in by this myth of common decent.
Only the priesthood of Darwinian doctrine continue with this myth.

Now let me respond to your final little bit of rhetoric

Do you accept Kepler’s Laws of motion? – Of course you do
Do you accept Newton’s Laws on gravity — Of course you do
Do you accept Maxwell’s Laws on Electromagnetism – Of course you do

Did Kepler or Newton or Maxwell make those laws? Do tell please — who?
But you accept them all without knowing don’t you?

So instead of all your

let us make a deal

You tell me who made those Laws and I will tell you who designed the cell.

Deal?

Scottie,

Your point about the adaptation of the panda’s thumb is irrelevant. It does not prove design, just adaptation. Interestingly I would point that the carnivorous and wasteful digestive system of said animal is once again a good argument for its link with other bears (who are all carnivorous). The adaptation of its digestive flora is once again irrelevant to the point, it does adapt. And frigging quickly. Observing variation of any individual digestive flora over time (and even more so if its diet is modified) is easy. Understanding waht happens is another story, though…

As for the laws of physics, nobody designed them. They are the consequence of the interaction whatever constituted the primordial soup of the Big Bang.

But who designed your designer? I do not give a shit who or what it is, but if it has the power to interact with our world, it comes from somewhere. Yet we know that it cannot come from nothing as design is essantial to anything. So who designed your designer?

See that is why it is dangerous to play with a razor, you can hurt yourself.

I’m still waiting to hear more about this designer. Who, what, when ,where, how?

BDDVM

Since you are having trouble with a definition of species why don’t you sort out in your own mind what constitutes “a species” and then we can continue our discussion.

canalon

Oh dear
Did you really think this one through?

Is this supposed to be an explanation based on science?

Your confusion in the mixing of two concepts from two different hypothesis reveals more about what you don’t understand, than about what you do understand.

The primordial soup is the start point from which Darwin formulated his Origin of species hypothesis. Somehow life came into being from some chemicals.

No one has even figured out what this so called soup consisted of. Scientists have only been able to speculate as to what it may have consisted of.

The most fundamental law in biology is that life comes only from another pre-existing life.

Louis Pasteur clarified this law of Biogenesis about 150 years ago. I take it you did learn about this at school.( Incidently, Pasteur and Darwin were contemporaries.)

Funny that eh ! Darwin hypothesising that life started from a chemical soup and Pasteur showing through science that it couldn’t.

But hey why let science stand in the way of a good story.

Now
The Big Bang hypothesis starts with a mathematical concept called Singularity.
Singularity has no physical existence.

Monsignor Georges Lemaître a Belgian Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang hypothesis.
Of course it had a few rather basic problems so in 1980 Alan Guth bolted on his hypothesis which we know as Inflation theory to try and make some sense of the Big Bang but created even more problems.

By the way George Lemaitre also believed that the Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at her death.

Do you now understand the difference between these two theories? Good
So now lets go a little further

Now you should at least know this one.

The most fundamental law in physics is the law of the conservation of energy.
In the natural world neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

Therefore either matter and energy has had no beginning (i.e. it has always existed, the concept of infinity)
OR
it was brought into existence as a consequence of an action outside the physical world.

Since infinity is simply a mathematical construct and has no physical existence the latter must apply.

That is why our Catholic priest thought up this hypothesis to explain how his god would have have created the universe.

So your answer is both scientifically wrong and religiously based.

Your confusion reveals not your science but your religion.
And all religions have dogmas.
So would you like to try again

Once you have absorbed this little lesson we can continue with our science class.

I’ll make you a deal. I’ll define Species when you define your designer.
I can’t help but wonder why you are reluctant to define your designer.

I am able to get back to the forum for the weekend and
Yes I accept your deal
Design
to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan or purpose

Examples of designers in the natural world
Birds – constructing a nest
Ants – constructing a anthill
Etc,etc.

Examples of religion’s chief designers (supposedly)
Christendom’s Triune god
Islam’s Allah
Hindu’s Vishnu
Egyptian’s Amon
Evolution’s Random mutation
Etc, etc, etc,

Examples of human designers
Isambard Kingdom Brunell — bridges
Isaac Newton — telescope
Robert Oppenheimer — atomic bomb
Etc, etc, etc.

Now Regarding the designer of the cell.

I am not able to define the designer, any more than I can define the maker of the natural laws.
Neither can you or anyone else.
That is why I was able to confidentially offer the deal canalon.

However what I find amusing are the arrogant assumptions some have who claim they can, only to find that when their claims are put to the test and found wanting, they have to try and change the debate to one of belief or religion.

Science does not need to define the designer of anything to acknowledge the fact that design is there.

Religions however by their nature have to, in order to attract believers.

However you can as indeed I can define an understanding of species.
There is enough information around to be able to do this.

So do tell please what is it? I have already given you my understanding.

WRONG, If you posit a designer it is incumbant on you to define as much as you can and attempt to prove/ disprove it.
"I believe in a designer that can design the cell." doesn’t cut it.
and they say survival of the fittest is a tautology.
I am only interested in practical theories. Does your designer currently do anything? Will any more designs be forthcoming? Does your designer have any interest in helping or hurting me?
If your designer is beyond the reach of scientific investigation then they might as well be in a different universe and anything said about them is pointless speculation (Phylosophy).
The designer positted by modern biology is well defined. Mostly (if not completely) random changes in the genetic material of preexisting organisms ( or almost living chemical systems capable of some crude form of replication) provide variation in the population. Selection (natural, sexual, domestication) removes variations that don’t fit in an available niche. The remaining organisms reproduce. Repeat, repeat ,repeat.
Things you wouldn’t expect to see. Perfection, this process is a little messy. Completely new designs with no previous history. Virgin birth
(Spontaneous generation)
Notice I don’t mention your arguement. Complexity is not evidence against this process. Life doesn’t violate any thermodynamic laws.
Organic molecules are perfectly capable of creating bizarrely complex systems without intelligent input.
If you find a watch on the beach it is perfectly logical to look around for the owner/maker. If however you find a crab on the beach there is no reason to look for it’s creator. It’s pretty likely other crabs were involved.

First things first

If you are going to quote me then do it accurately. Please don’t attribute comments to me I have not made.

This is what I wrote. “Now Regarding the designer of the cell.” And it was in In response to your question
Nowhere will you find that I have said “I believe in a designer”

The only belief I have clearly enumerated is that I believe in the veracity of the scientific method. I also stated my understanding of the scientific method.

It seems very clear now that you are trying very hard to engage in a philosophical debate.

I have repeatedly stated that the cell displays all the evidence of functional design and not the product of random variation.

I have also stated quite clearly that random mutations cannot produce the functional design clearly observed in cell operations and have given scientific reasons why this is so.

Now if the reasons I have provided can be shown to be scientifically inaccurate then please do correct me. If not then my argument stands, because it is based on scientific and not wishful thinking.

You are still evading the issue of species definition so I will give up on getting that from you. 🙂
However you have committed to a definition of the

You state

Now I must presume that you regard this to be a statement of scientific validity.
So let me examine it.

Could you explain what are “almost living chemical systems” ?

Also please describe what you mean by “some crude form of replication”?

This part of your definition is about variation within existing population is it not?

This again is about variation within an existing population is it not?
You appear to be agreeing with me,

This is simple rhetoric that doesn’t seem to make a great deal of sense.
Are you saying that Virgin birth (whatever that is) is spontaneous generation?

Whose is arguing that complexity is evidence of design. Design can be simple or complex and I gave examples in my previous post.

Please address what I am writing and not make up arguments you wish to attack. I think they are called straw man arguments.

Who say’s it does?

How?

Do you not see the obvious contradiction between this statement and your opening statement.

So if the design of crab is as you claim the product of random mutations and natural selection then it is also as you put it
“incumbant on you to define as much as you can and attempt to prove/ disprove it.”

So how does the mechanism of random mutations produce the biological algorithms we observe in the cell?

Now here is an example of such a algorithm.

IF lactose present. AND glucose not present. AND cell can actually synthesize active LacZ and LacY. THEN transcribe lacZYA from lacP ...

You will find an explanation of this here

http://books.google.com/books?id=WSf1FF … 22&f=false

Now if you have any difficulty in understanding how algorithms work don’t worry I will explain it all scientifically.

Apparently it boils down to the fact that you can’t imagine or can’t allow yourself to imagine that these complex systems, algorhythms if you will, evolved.
I and the rest of the scientific community have no problem imagining this evolution process producing all the life we see, both alive and extinct. There is a reason it’s considered one of the greatest theories ever.
Don’t get too hung up on the species concept, evolution obviously doesn’t.
I apologize for misquoting your apparent arguments about a designer.
You’ve left some significant gaps in your definition which I had to guess at. I was left assuming that you fall into the catagory of creationist/ Intelligent designist. If this is not true I sincerly apologize. If it is true just say so and quit avoiding putting your beliefs out where they can be debated.

So if I understand your problem with evolution:
– The cell, or living organisms cannot have arisen de novo because nothing comes from nothing
– And self organizing complexity cannot arise spontaneously from chemistry alone
– Ergo There must have been something that designed it.

But you cannot say what that designer might be, or where it comes from, or anything substantial about it. So your Scientific conclusion is that there must be a designer because you cannot imagine anything else, but because you are a scientist you will not say anything about it because that would be philosophy. Great. I am temepted to say that once summarized your argument is a bit crap.

BDDVM

You have summed up your position very well indeed. It is all in your imagination.
I respect you for acknowledging that.

Also you are right about me. I don’t have those imaginative powers. It is a failing I have I must admit.

Now this is a very interesting statement. Am I not correct in understanding that your position is Darwinian based. Is it not also true that his seminal work is entitled “ Origin of Species….”. I have read his work and the term species keeps coming up with almost monotonous regularity. Very strange!!!!

Why are you left assuming?
This is what I wrote on the 14th April.

Now how much clearer do you wish me to be?
I would be happy to sign some kind of affidavit if you wish. 🙂

However apologies accepted.

My belief system is out there to be debated but you don’t appear to want to.

Why are you having such a problem with my belief in the veracity of the scientific method?

I appreciate you don’t have the same faith in it’s veracity as I do, but my faith is very much evidenced based.

That is why I have gone to such great lengths to provide the information from science papers and publications to demonstrate my absolute confidence in my belief.

canalon

You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

I don’t have any problems with evolution. I know evolution occurs. I also know the limits of what it can accomplish and what it cannot.

With respect you are the one with the problems. You don’t accept the limits that prevent speciation but are unable to support that understanding with evidence.

You still adhere to the idea of common decent and yet molecular biology now demonstrates that this hypothesis has been falsified. I have provided you with the evidence and you take no note. I can do no more than to keep trying to educate.

That is correct, however it does not have to be very complex.

There is a tendency for some to confuse self ordering with self organising.

Self ordering can and does happen. Tornadoes and whirlpools are examples of self ordering, and chaos theory well explains those phenomena.

Self organising however, of which the cell is a prime example cannot be explained by the action of any natural law(s). The origin of the codes operating within the cell can only be speculated at because natural laws do not produce the symbolic information that is clearly evident.

You are right I cannot define the designer of the cell. But then nor can you. You tried to demonstrate how natural laws came about and look at the hopeless tangle you got yourself into.
Come on now be honest, you made a right pigs ear of it didn’t you?
Nothing to be ashamed of though, science can’t answer questions like that, you were just a little bit silly to try.

Religions however supposedly can. All they have to do is construct a dogma and that explains it. Darwinism has become a dogma, no differently.

Now I know this cuts across your belief system, but you are making the claim that you have science on your side.

When I explain and show that you don’t have science on your side, it gets frustrating and shows up in your deteriorating language.

Finally, on this question of naming the designer, May I relate a little sad story from about October 2001.

Three very hardworking guys discovered a quite amazing control system and were put up to receive a prize for all their hard work and ingenuity.

However the prize panel while recognising their tremendous work realised it fell significantly short because they were unable to tell who was the designer of the system. Sadly therefore this system had to be classified as non-designed in the same way as the wheel or the abacus.

However the panel did feel they deserved some recognition so they awarded them a consolation prize.

You will find the whole sad tale here
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medi … press.html

Scottie,

You miss the point, I do not care if you are a creationist, an IDiot, or simply thick. What i am trying to argue is that the theory of evolution is the only theory that fits and explains life as we see it. If you argue that self organization cannot happen, you have to explain where the organization comes from, what the designer is in other word. It is not a name that I want, but an idea of what the designer is, where it comes from. The point is that your affirmation that self organization is impossible, besides lacking demonstration, throw your reasoning in a recursive loop, and I am curious to know how you get out of it.
But if you provide a reasonned and undestandable model for design, I promise that I will definitely reconsider my views on evolution. Right now however, you seem limited to say that there must be a designer and therefore evolution is wrong. Sorry that does not work. Offer something consistent.
As for your story it is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

I’m fascinated with this designer. Please can we have some details that we may use to make our daily lives better.

canalon

That is a very reasonable question so let’s see if I can provide a scientifically satisfying answer.

I will start with an illustration in symbolic representation. Please bear with me.

A person walking past a house notices the roof is on fire. He also is aware that someone is in the house. He has no way of communicating with the householder as he is a deaf mute.

He notices that the front yard is laid with loose pebbles.
He goes into the yard and arranges some of the pebbles of a particular colour to read.
“Roof on fire Get out”
The householder reads the pebbles and escapes.
Now what has gone on here?

The yard pebbles in themselves have no meaning. They are inert, just lumps of pebble molecules.

The passer-by arranged some of the pebbles in such a way as to put a meaning into them. In other words he coded some of the pebbles to convey meaning.

Now the householder had to decode the pebble arrangement. IF he could not understand written English, the message would be meaningless to him. In other words the pebbles would have remained inert to him because he could not decode the pebble arrangement and therefore no function (his escape) would take place.

This is the essence of Shannon communication.
A Coder is required – the passerby
A Channel of communication required – the pebbles
A Decoder is required – the householder.

There is another element that needs to be considered. NOISE.

If for instance the pebble arrangement starts to get messed up due to wind or heavy rain or the householder simply running across it, the arrangement begins to get corrupted. This is noise. Now the coder would have to keep rearranging the pebbles to retain meaning.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the pebbles in themselves carry no meaning. They are inert.
The meaning that is put into the arrangement comes from outside—The passer-by.
He uses a code (written English) and importantly the householder understands that code and can act on it.

Now it is this method of communication that the cell uses.

Here is an example of a fairly simple regulatory system.

The lac operon in E. coli and other bacteria is an example of a simple regulatory circuit. In bacteria, genes with related functions are often located next to each other, controlled by the same regulatory region, and transcribed together; this group of genes is called an operon. The lac operon functions in the metabolism of the sugar lactose, which can be used as an energy source. However, the bacteria prefer to use glucose as an energy source, so if there is glucose present in the environment the bacteria do not want to make the proteins that are encoded by the lac operon. Therefore, transcription of the lac operon is regulated by an elegant circuit in which transcription occurs only if there is lactose but not glucose is present in the environment.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-e … note01.pdf

James Shapiro describes refers to this simple but excellent example of cell coding for function.

"IF lactose present AND glucose not present AND cell can synthesize active LacZ and LacY, THEN transcribe lacZYA from lacP."

The symbols IF AND THEN in this simple functional code have meaning but that meaning in NOT in the molecules themselves.( as in the pebbles) As James Shapiro himself says. They are inert.
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Ce … _Evol.html ( Please spend some time reading it. You will find it very instructive.)

The expression THEN is what is referred to as a Decision Node. These nodes are required in a genetic algorithm for function to take place. Without these decision nodes natural laws take everything forward and is explained very well in chaos theory.

Notice also the expressions IF and AND. These expressions introduce potential into the algorithm. (the algorithm looks forward to note if a particular situation exists and IF it exists then move forward this way). Now when potential is recognised in an algorithm then natural mechanistic laws cannot be involved in that decision making process simply because moving forward takes the course of the algorithm and not natural law.

Now the meaning of these symbols comes from the cell itself.
A good question can be …
How did that meaning come about? But that question does not hinder the science of trying to understand how the cell works. Does it?

If you read David Abel’s and Jack Trevor’s paper “Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information”
You will find it here
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

They clearly show that this symbolic meaning cannot arrive in any natural materialistic way and have shown why this is not possible even in theory.

They have put forward 4 Null Hypothesis and invites them to be falsified.
To date there has been no success.
Science only deals with the materialistic world of natural laws.

Shapiro uses the expression Natural genetic engineering because he philosophically wants the answer as to the origin of this process to come from a naturalistic cause. If you removed the adjective Natural from his descriptions of cell functions, the explanatory power of his papers does not diminish in the slightest.

Is there anything wrong with his use of that adjective? Well NO.
It just needs to be recognised what the science is and what the philosophy is.

All too often the boundary between science and philosophy gets very very blurred.

Darwinian evolution that has developed into today’s Modern Synthesis is in reality a Null Hypothesis. This null hypothesis is being falsified by the science of molecular biology.

Random mutations cannot produce symbolic representation. Random mutation is the NOISE that degrades symbolic representation. The cell’s genetic engineering repair systems work at eliminating that noise.

The irony of this is, that noise in an information channel degrades the information content and engineers spend great time and effort in reducing that noise in order to maintain clarity of information. Darwinian theory on the other hand is based on noise being the instrument that drives forward progress.
It totally contradicts Shannon information theory.

Practically every molecular biologist around the world is discovering what James Shapiro is so ably presenting, in showing that the Darwinian process is simply not the mechanism that explains speciation. That mechanism is simply not known.

In my next post in a couple of hours I will try and provide another example that visually is more instructive.

And will you make any progress toward answering the question?

"If design cannot be spontaneous, where/how did the designer originate?"

Let’s take another example but this time with far more selective power. I will try to make it more visually descriptive to demonstrate the process.
tRNA biosynthesis
DNA molecule carries the instructions which are absolutely necessary to produce enzymes, different nucleotide complexes, and smaller protein molecules used in the processes of transcription and translation. One of such important tools are tRNA molecules. Each living cell constantly utilizes some 40 different forms of the tRNA molecule.

We will look at the yeast DNA gene for tRNA tyr
The tRNATyr gene has to be found in one of the chromosomes. Here that gene is represented with the aid of the four symbols A, C, G, T, substituted for the rather complex chemical formulas of four the different deoxyribonucleotides:

Here it is.
GTTATCAGTTAATTGACTCTCGGTAGCCAAGTTGGTTTAAGGCGCAAGACT GTAATTTACCACTACGAAATCTTTGAGATCGGGCGTTCGACTCGCCCCCG GGAGATT

Don’t worry about the exact meaning of this sequence just note the configuration changes as they come along.

The DNA gene has to be copied (transcribed). The gene remains intact in the structure of the given chromosome. The subunits of the copy are made from a different kind of sugar (not deoxyribose, but ribose), and one of the original organic bases (T) is substituted by another one (U):

So the early RNA transcript of the gene is

GUUAUCAGUUAAUUGACUCUCGGUAGCCAAGUUGGUUUAAGGCGC AAGACUGUAAUUUACCACUACGAAAUCUUUGAGAUCGGGCGUUCG ACUCGCCCCCGGGAGAUU (notice the T’s are now U’s)

Both the tRNATyr gene and its faithful RNA copy consist of four different units linked in a sequence 104 subunits long. Now this may seem to us quite random, but in fact it is absolutely non-random, i.e. this specific sequence is closely correlated with the final, functional properties of the tRNATyr molecule. Virtually any change in this sequence makes it unfit to fill properly its job in the cell.

This non-randomness is usually called selectivity.

This RNA copy dictated by the structure of the tRNATyr gene undergoes many further complex modifications before it changes into the functional primary or mature structure of the tRNATyr molecule.
Parts of the precursor 1 copy have to be removed. The removed elements are written in lowercase red

guuaucaguuaauugaCUCUCGGUAGCCAAGUUGGUUUAAGGCGCAAGA CUGUAAuuuaccacuacgaaAUCUUUGAGAUCGGGCGUUCGACUCGCCC CCGGGAGAuu

Which give us Precursor 2

CUCUCGGUAGCCAAGUUGGUUUAAGGCGCAAGACUGUAAAUCUUU GAGAUCGGGCGUUCGACUCGCCCCCGGGAGACAA

Several single units have to undergo a transformation. The transformed elements are the final, functional primary structure of the yeast tRNA Tyr

CUCUCGGUAGmCCAAGDDGmGDDDAAGGCGmCAAGACUGPsAAiA
PsCUUUGAGADCmGGGCGTPsCGAmCUCGCCCCCGGGAGACCA

Have a look again at the early RNA transcript of the tRNA gene dictated by the sequence of the DNA gene the early RNA transcript of the gene – the supposedly unique source of information

GUUAUCAGUUAAUUGACUCUCGGUAGCCAAGUUGGUUUAAGGCGC AAGACUGUAAUUUACCACUACGAAAUCUUUGAGAUCGGGCGUUCG ACUCGCCCCCGGGAGAUU

The final, functional primary structure of the yeast tRNATyr differs considerably from the original DNA gene.
It is shorter than the gene – just 78 subunits long, but it is composed not from four but from eleven different subunits.

The original DNA gene is simply a very rough and incomplete information set that is required to produce the function it is required to. It has to be modified

The process of modifying the raw precursor involves a considerable increase in the selectivity of the product. This increase is over 1000 fold.

In other words the selectivity guaranteed by the DNA gene is insignificantly small in comparison with the selectivity really needed and actually somehow provided.

So where does this enormous selective power reside? We don’t know.

About 14 years ago mRNA editing was discovered. This means that the DNA genes, in some cases, do not determine the proper sequence of amino acids. The information provided by DNA messages is – in these cases -simply wrong, from the functional, biological point of view, and it has to be edited during a separate stage. As a result of this editing the original, primary molecular meaning of a given gene can be radically changed.

If DNA is the main ruling agency of the body mechanisms, then any mutilation of the DNA molecule should be fatal and unrecoverable. In reality DNA can, and is constantly being repaired. Somehow the organism knows how to detect a change in the genetic message, and utilizes many different, complex procedures to repair different forms of mutation.

Here is another spanner in the works of the one gene one function concept
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a … +One+Codon,
As the abstract concludes
“Thus, the genetic code supports the use of one codon to code for multiple aminoacids.”

In linguists we have homonyms, one word having two meanings. The meaning is determined by the context. ( bear –an animal but also to carry something) the context determines the meaning.)
So here we have the cell displaying a quasi-linguistic capability.

How did that meaning come about? Also where does that algorithm reside.
The simple answer is we do not know.

The present, almost completed inventory of the cell certainly does not contain any complex set of structures that we can identify with this type decision making code (and there are countless numbers of this information storage)

In a computer for instance we find these algorithms written onto the hard drive. But with the cell we have no idea as yet where these algorithms reside.

What is clear though is that symbolic information that is so clearly evident has to come from somewhere. It does not reside in the chemical nature of the molecules.

Random mutilation of DNA for example does not provide the prescriptive information that we see in cell operation.
In communication theory mutilation of any data is regarded as noise. And noise corrupts the signal. That is why such care is taken to eliminate noise from a communication channel..

So what we are seeing in these two examples are features of operations we would expect in genetic engineering design. As James Shipiro describes it Natural Genetic Engineering.

Please reflect on his concluding submission entitled
A 21st Century View of Evolution.

In part he states

The last half century has taught us an astonishing amount about how living organisms function at the molecular level, in particular about how they execute cellular computations through molecular interactions and about the systemic, modular, computation-ready organization of the genome. We have come to realize some of the basic design features that govern genome structure. Combining this knowledge with our understanding of how natural genetic engineering operates, it is possible to formulate the outlines of a new 21st Century vision of evolutionary engineering that postulates a more regular principle-based process of change than the gradual random walk of 19th and 20th Century theories. Such a new vision is not all-encompassing because it cannot provide detailed accounts for major events currently beyond the reach of science, such as the origin of cellular life or the mechanisms of endosymbiotic events underlying the emergence of distinct superkingdoms and kingdoms of life (51, 52). Nonetheless, a 21st Century view of evolution can help us understand how new taxonomic groups have emerged bearing novel complex adaptations.

And your point is…..

Canalon

This question is very confusing.

Where have I stated that design cannot be spontaneous?

May I remind what your original question was.

This is what I am in the progress of dealing with. So I will continue.

Now I deliberately waited a while before continuing in the hope that you would read the papers I have cited.

IF you have then you will know the answer to the question raised. However for the sake of clarity in case you have not fully absorbed the information I have presented.
Allow me to quote directly from his (Shapiro’s)paper that incidentally has referenced some 56 other papers and articles in support of his presentation.
Here is the paper again
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Ce … _Evol.html

Under the heading
A 21ST CENTURY VIEW OF EVOLUTION

"The last half century has taught us an astonishing amount about how living organisms function at the molecular level, in particular about how they execute cellular computations through molecular interactions and about the systemic, modular, computation-ready organization of the genome. We have come to realize some of the basic design features that govern genome structure.
Combining this knowledge with our understanding of how natural genetic engineering operates, it is possible to formulate the outlines of a new 21st Century vision of evolutionary engineering that postulates a more regular principle-based process of change than the gradual random walk of 19th and 20th Century theories.

Such a new vision is not all-encompassing because it cannot provide detailed accounts for major events currently beyond the reach of science, such as the origin of cellular life or the mechanisms of endosymbiotic events underlying the emergence of distinct superkingdoms and kingdoms of life (51, 52).

Nonetheless, a 21st Century view of evolution can help us understand how new taxonomic groups have emerged bearing novel complex adaptations."

He then summarises in the following way

"� Major evolutionary change to the genome occurs by the amplification and rearrangement of pre-existing modules. Old genomic systems are disassembled and new genomic systems are assembled by natural genetic engineering functions that operate via non-random molecular processes.

� Major alterations in the content and distribution of repetitive DNA elements results in a reformatting of the genome to function in novel ways –without major alterations of protein coding sequences. These reformattings would be particularly important in adaptive radiations within taxonomic groups that use the same basic materials to make a wide variety of morphologically distinct species (e.g. birds and mammals).

� Large-scale genome-wide reorganizations occur rapidly (potentially within a single generation) following activation of natural genetic engineering systems in response to a major evolutionary challenge. The cellular regulation of natural genetic engineering automatically imposes a punctuated tempo on the process of evolutionary change.

� Targeting of natural genetic engineering processes by cellular control networks to particular regions of the genome enhances the probability of generating useful new multi-locus systems. (Exactly how far the computational capacity of cells can influence complex genome rearrangements needs to be investigated. This area also holds promise for powerful new biotechnologies.)

� Natural selection following genome reorganization eliminates the misfits whose new genetic structures are non-functional. In this sense, natural selection plays an essentially negative role, as postulated by many early thinkers about evolution (e.g. 53). Once organisms with functional new genomes appear, however, natural selection may play a positive role in fine-tuning novel genetic systems by the kind of micro-evolutionary processes currently studied in the laboratory."

He concludes this way

"Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock�s discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes (5). It has also supported her view that the genome can "sense danger" and respond accordingly (56).
The recognition of the fundamentally biological nature of genetic change and of cellular potentials for information processing frees our thinking about evolution. In particular, our conceptual formulations are no longer dependent on the operation of stochastic processes. Thus, we can now envision a role for computational inputs and adaptive feedbacks into the evolution of life as a complex system. Indeed, it is possible that we will eventually see such information-processing capabilities as essential to life itself."

In 2009 Shapiro revisited this subject and you will find his paper here.
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro … 0Dogma.pdf
This time citing 154 reference articles.
Under
“Natural Genetic Engineering
Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the ideathat the genome is a stable structure thatchanges rarely and accidentally by chemicalfluctuations or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.

Genetic changeis almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering, and their
activity in genome evolution has been extensively documented.”

In summary therefore
The mechanism for genetic change is the natural genetic engineering process Shapiro describes.
Old genomic systems are disassembled and new genomic systems are assembled by natural genetic engineering functions that operate via non-random molecular processes.
Basic design features are now recognised
Major change occurs suddenly (potentially within one generation and supported by the fossil record)

You will notice that although Shapiro acknowledges the design engineering process. He also states that it’s origin is currently beyond the scope of science.

If you want to persist in your argument of having to name or describe a designer, for the process to be credible, then your argument against the evolutionary community itself.
Because Shapiro is an evolutionary biologist and so are a great number of scientists who also recognise this process.

There are a reducing number of biologists who still subscribe to the Darwinian process of random mutations.
The main protagonists are notably Dawkins and Coyne who seem more interested in promoting their religious views rather than science.

So, if not random mutations, what? Do you suggest corn is consciously redisigning itself ? To me it just looks like another aspect of the Red Queen. (Keep the rate of change in your genome at least as high as your parasites or be replaced by someone who does.)

Scottie, if there is design, there is intent or a designer.
You have been arguing that randomness cannot explain the complicated funcctions that are observed in every life form, and that as consequence life has to be designed.
So once again:
who/what is the designer of life, and where did it itself come from.

I am not interested in the rest. you are dodging the essential question and your longwinded evasions are tiring.

Come on Scottie at least give us a hint about the designer. The suspense is killing me. Or are you just trying to manufacture some "controversy among the scientific community".

BDDVM

Well you have lost the argument on science and so you are reduced to sarcasm.
OK so that is your method of debate. I’ll run with you then.

Now despite all the evidence, are you really still running with random mutations? 🙂
Oh dear I was hoping your claim to be a person of science had some merit.
You might just as well swap “random mutations” with “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” . 🙂

canalon

No no you have it wrong.
I havn’t been arguing that randomness cannot explain..
I have been proving it.

I take it then you are not interested in the evidence that science provides.
My “long winded evasions “ as you put it are the product of actual empirical evidence provided by peer-reviewed papers from the scientific (evolutionary) community and what is more you have not provided a single refutation.

Come on admit it, you know you have lost the scientific argument so your only avenue of escape now is to change the subject to your religion. But as I have said before I don’t do religion.

I know it hurts to be shown up on actual science, especially when so much emotional energy has been invested in a belief that is coming apart at the seams.

The Pope has the same problem you know, so don’t feel too isolated, you are in good company.:)

Look isn’t it better to acknowledge you are wrong than to religiously stick to a dogma that simply does not stack up.

Science progresses through the falsification of previously held views or hypotheses.
In fact it is this kind of falsification that elevates true science from a lot of the claptrap that so pervades life.

Still no hints about the nature of the designer?
How can your theory be falsified if you refuse to give any details?
Some direct questions about your designer.
Currently designing? or Finished designing a long time ago?
Intelligent being?
Does the designer have any interest in my well being?
None of these questions should take more than a few words to answer.(this forum doesn’t work well with long arguements.)

Here is a short reply

Do you wish to discuss science or religion.

Which?

Because my understanding is that this is a science forum?

scottie: you came up with the designer, so don’t ask whether to discuss science or religion and answer the questions.

BDDVM

Let ‘s try and understand what science can or cannot do.

This is really primary school stuff and I genuinely thought I was in discussion with an intellect beyond this level, but apparently not.

So let’s take for example my Honda Accord vehicle.

Science can determine that it has been designed by someone and manufactured by someone, because firstly it has function, also because it has parts that have the attributes of manufacture. It has circuitry and a computer system that has feedback loops etc. It has heat exchange systems that again have the attributes of design etc etc etc.

That is what science can tell you. Actually it is pretty much a matter of common sense is it not.

However science cannot tell you who designed or manufactured it.
That information can only come from some form of historical record.

What is so difficult to understand?
This is something an eight year old child can understand.

Now the cell has all the attributes of design. That is not in question.
Any biologist will affirm that.

The question is not whether it is designed.
The question is whether that design can come about by random mutations.
The theory of random mutations claims to be a scientific theory, therefore it can be examined by the scientific method to determine whether that can be so.

Now I have at very great lengths presented the evidence from within the scientific community to demonstrate that random mutations cannot produce the attributes of function we observe in the cell.

You have not been able to scientifically refute any of my posts.

Now many of the religions of this world claim to know how this came about.
However they cannot demonstrate it through the scientific method, therefore they rest their case on a belief system and those beliefs are founded on Dogmas which adherents hold dear.
That much is clear is it not.

The problem you have is that you also have a Dogma which is random mutations, but the difference is that you claim it to be scientifically based.

That is where your problem is, because when the scientific method is applied to this Dogma it fails the test.

Now no end of sarcasm and cat calls will alter this very simple fact.

If you say that this is what you believe, then that is a very different matter, simply because a belief system, or philosophy or religion takes this matter beyond science.

What I have done is not present a theory of design.
I have presented facts that demonstrate the cell is designed.
Now who or what designed it is beyond the reach of science.

To determine who or what designed it must be a matter of an historical record and not a scientific record.

I simply don’t aggree that your designer is beyond the reach of science.
Therefore I am requesting some information about your designer.
I’m afraid "I don’t believe in your theory and I won’t tell you mine." sounds a little juvenile.

Actually, that has no attributes of design, but attributes of creation, but doesn’t tell you anything what has created it. Whether it was someone or the previous generation of Hondas.

I really don’t understand why you are having such difficulty in recognising the obvious

Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
The discovery of natural selection, by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, must itself be counted as an extraordinary philosophical advance.

All you have to do is recognise that natural selection is a philosophical concept. No different from the philosophical concepts of other religions.

What is the problem?

probably recognizing, that it’s only philosophy, since you can have experiments to confirm or not the evolution. Even more, you can see it in the nature.

JackBean

What I wrote (the above)in my last post is a direct quote from Ernst Mayr himself in his lecture of 1999
You will find that lecture here
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-on … luence.htm

One of the founding fathers of the modern synthesis proudly hails Darwinism as a philosophy.
You are now taking on Ernst Mayr, well good for you.

that’s nice example, how context may change meaning.

Phylosophy is the intellectual persuit of truth. Science is a rather recent and far more effective tool than the biased hand waving(and coersion) of the past. Scottie, stop the evasions,long winded obfuscations and name dropping. Just explain your theory.

The context has not changed any meaning.
Here is what he went on further to say in the same lecture

my emphasis.

No context change here at all.
Ernst Mayr was simply being honest and indeed proud of it.

Evolutionary theory is not a physical science it is a philosophy that is being promoted as a physical science.

BDDVM

You posted

Ok let’s put that statement to the test

Craig Venter and his team made headlines when they announced their success in transforming and existing cell into a cell with as he put it “with no biological anscester”

He published an account of what his team accomplished in the Science Express portion of the journal Science. Here is an excerpt from the 12-page report.

They made this long DNA molecule by putting together smaller segments of commercially available DNA which they purchased from Blue Heron. They purchased pieces that were about 1,000 base pairs long and joined ten of them together to form pieces that were about 10,000 base pairs long. They took ten of these 10,000 base pair pieces and joined them together to form pieces about 100,000 base pairs long. Finally, they joined eleven of these 100,000 base pair pieces together to form the complete molecule.

In other words they designed and built a new genome and inserted this genome into the cell of another bacterium and it booted up.

As he says

Now take any number of biologists and examine that cell. Make sure they have no information about how that cell came about. We know that it was clearly designed and built(or at least an important part of it was).

Now just for clarity here is your statement again

So please explain to me but more importantly to this forum, how these biologists by only using the tools of science can determine who the designer and creator of this new species is.

If science can do that, then you should have no problem demonstrating it.

Please prove me wrong.

Sounds like Craig Venter was the designer in this case. I’m pretty sure you can’t extrapolate that very far. Craig Ventor is human, he was engaged in a scientific exploration, and I doubt that he has created any other life. (Being a scientist he wouldn’t keep it a secret.)
Now back to your designer. WHO? WHAT? WHEN? WHERE? hell I am even curious about WHY? Inquiring minds want to know.
By the way, if your apponant in an arguement gets tired, annoyed,exasperated and decides argueing with you is pointless, it doesn’t mean you have won the arguement. This is a common misconception among crackpots. Crackpots believe that when people politely nod and smile that they are aggreeing with the ranting. It just means that they know a crackpot when they see one and know that it can be dangerous to provoke the delusional. Don’t be a crackpot.

No NO it doesn’t sound like Craig Venter. It was Craig Venter and his team.

And how do we know that Venter is the designer?
Because he has provided an historical record, or has that simple point escaped your notice.
Without that record we would not know who created it.

We would not know by examining the cell itself with all the science at our disposal.

As I have said before and repeatedly, neither I nor any other person could tell who created the cell without some form of authentic historical record, any more than could you tell who designed and made this cell without an historical record to accompany it.

Surely even you with all your intelligence can understand that, can’t you?

As for me, well I am just a crackpot aren’t I, so how could I possibly explain such simple concepts to you. 🙂

I’m having trouble seeing what this experiment says about your designer.
I recall you were at one time hung up on the idea that creating a new species was not possible. Even though it’s just a bacteria it is a new species, lab created. Just like the lizards.Two proofs of concept.
It seems your designer hasn’t been doing anything metaphysical, just physical and well within the pervue of science.
Sooooooo, once more Please describe your theoretical designer.
If you evade this question once more I will give up on you and you will no doubt conclude (incorrectly) that you have won this arguement.

Well there you go, rambling again. (bad sign) 🙂

However let’s try and unravel your confusion.

You really must not rely on your powers of recall, a very uncertain process. Go and read my posts again. It really isn’t that difficult, it is in English.

It does seem that you have some difficulty with language. I need to take that into account in future. Very remiss of me, please accept my apologies.

Where have I stated or even relied on anything metaphysical?
In fact I have been arguing that the metaphysical is within your argumentation and therefore not physical science.

Oh come come, I don’t need to conclude anything. You reveal it all for yourself far better than I could ever conclude.

I will of course try and educate if you wish to continue. Patience is a virtue I have tried to develop over many years now, so don’t worry you won’t be in any danger of trying my patience, honest. 🙂

Please back up this absurd statement.

Also, I take issue with your consistent mischaracterizations of what the literature, you yourself have linked in this thread, actually say.

Shapiro could reference 56 or 560,000,000,000 papers. So what? This is from a lecture at a conference, is speculative, is NOT a peer reviewed scientific work. On top of this blatant appeal to authority, you (and other ID’ers) have totally overstated what Shapiro is saying in this document, which Shapiro himself is overstating. There is nothing earth shattering in the actual science he is referencing in this document.

It’s a common tactic for creationists/intelligent design proponents to latch on to this particular document as if it totally disproves random mutation in favor of design claims. I back that statement up by simply pointing out that if search for Shapiro’s "third way" concept you find it plastered all over many psuedoscientific ID websites.

You have terribly mischaracterized this paper. In no way does this work refute common ancestry. It’s an attempt to reestablish the shape of the "tree of life", or even redefine it in other terms, to match the observational data. NOWHERE in the paper does the author even remotely suggest throwing out the idea of common ancestry.

This Biological Big Bang argument in no way supports design claims. The peer reviewers, however, saw the potential for this work to be misinterpreted (intentionally or otherwise).

Allow me to quote:

Your design claims are not science. Wish as though you might, they just aren’t. Design infers a designer. You admit science can’t find the designer. Therefore design claims are not science. Stop claiming they are.

You also repeatedly allude to "Darwinists" and try repeatedly to make the claim that Darwinian evolution is a religion. This a tired old debate tactic of the Creationist/Intelligent Design community. It’s a way to try to equate the two (religion and the study of evolution by natural processes) even though are clearly not the same thing.

Evolution is not a religion. Your evidence that it is a religion is the zeal and conviction with which it is pursued. This logic could be applied to ANY activity, for example quilting or coin collecting. Calling evolution a religion makes religion pretty much meaningless.

The fact is, people of diverse cultural backgrounds and religious affiliations believe in evolution, yet not one of them, if asked, would identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

About your design claims:
1) There is no "theory of design" in biology because design can’t be defined in the normal sense without also defining an agent and purpose. A theory of design must address agent and purpose or it is not about design. You admit that you do not define the agent and purpose. Therefore, even if you could somehow prove design, it wouldn’t be about design in the usual sense at all.
2) Nowhere in the scientific literature is any design theory validated.
3) The design claim is useless and unscientific, it has not generated any predictions and no scientific work has come from it.

scottie, you can go on linking scientific works and mischaracterizing until your heart’s content but you’d still be wrong WRONG wrong. All throughout this thread you’ve made this argument from incredulity about design. The problem with your arguments is that they rely on "disproving" evolution instead of proving positive your own claims. You appear to be trying to sneak in the god of the gaps whether you admit or not.

This is an absurd attempt to discount Darwinian evolution by misconstruing Mayr. Shame on you scottie. Shame.

The effects of Darwin’s ideas on Philosophy and the founding of the well regarded science of Philosophy of Biology is clearly the sentiment of Mayr’s article. Not writing off Darwinian evolution as something less than scientific or as a something akin to religion.

Mayr is giving praise to Darwin’s theories not solely as philosophical, but in addition to it’s merit as scientific FACT. Huge difference when you compare it to what you are inferring he meant scottie.

Further down in Mayr’s article:

"No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact." Sounds a heck of a lot different than what you wrote in your post right above the one I’m criticizing:

Darwinian evolution is not a religion. Did you just not understand Mayr, or were trying to intentionally misconstrue him? Either way your point is invalid and wrong.

–

Darwin created the theory of the origin of new species from the former by means of natural selection. The theory of evolution – "from simple replicators to the crown of evolutionary selection", he did not create, and just trying to adjust to his theory of the origin of species.

The theory of evolution before Darwin came up as a "whipping boy", embed it in biology and used to criticize the science of being a missionary.

Darwin’s theory works seamlessly with the theory of Devolution from the initial complex engineering design to dead-end species.
http://translate.google.com/translate?h … ro.name%2F

Response to freerob

Sorry for the delay in responding but I have been doing other things and have only just got back to this forum.

Now you raise a lot of questions for me to deal with so if I may I deal with each one in the order you raised them.

First

my statement
"There are a reducing number of biologists who still subscribe to the Darwinian process of random mutations.
The main protagonists are notably Dawkins and Coyne who seem more interested in promoting their religious views rather than science.”

When you put out a challenge like this please be certain you know what you are talking about.

Let me start backing up my statement with the actual names of Scientists who have publicly put their names forward as ones who refute the Darwinian process of natural selection acting upon random mutations

Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic
K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University
David Chapman Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science

Now I am going to pause here, as it is only just a start, and ask you to match my list of non-Darwinists with a comparable list of Darwinists.

For every name you put forward I will match it.

Now are you prepared to go toe to toe with me with “this absurd statement” of mine.”

I will deal with the rest of your comments but let’s first get this one out of the way.

Nice appeal to authority.
With some dead physicists and other people completely unrelated science. Is that supposed to impress anyone? Is a list of 20-something scientists demonstrating anything else than those 20-something people had view that dissent with the majority.
How do that prove that a reducing number of scientist believe something?

canalon

I said that was a start, you really need to read what I am actually writing.
How far do you wish me to go and more importantly will you be able to match me name for name.
My list was not an appeal to authority but simply to respond to freerob’s challenge to support my previous statement.

How else can I do that without naming names. I naturally assumed that to be a fairly basic requirement.

By the way those I have named were not dead when they went public, some though may have died since. Life does have that unfortunate quality.

Also as far as proof goes, just one or two of those who have changed from Darwinian to non Darwinian
is sufficient to prove my point. —— However I am not relying on just a few.

We can take this as far as you wish.

I do understand however that your need to go for any little opening you can spot since the big gates have closed in on you.

No you have not answered my question. I doubt you ever will.
As for your list the kind of data would be rather like polls telling me what percentage of scientists (I’d rather have biologist as the other are not very likely to be more than laymen in the field) support which side of the discussion. if possible with size of sample, origin and method of sampling. You know data, not anecdotes (which is exactly what a list of name is).
And since you claim a reducing number of scientists, please provide at least 2 data points (the more the merrier) to support your assertion.

Oh and define scientist.

Should I list my former students (3rd year Biology major), they know probably a lot more on the subject that some random chemists and mathematicians. Or all my fellow labmates?

How many biologists would you like me to name?
How many can you name?
I notice you have learnt a salutary lesson not to engage in facts but just rely on rhetoric.

So how many would you like me to name.

Here are some more.

Jiøí Vácha Professor Emeritus of Pathological Physiology Institute of Pathophysiology, Masaryk University (Czech Republic)
John S. Roden Associate Professor of Biology Southern Oregon University
Donald W. Russell Adjunct Assistant Clinical Professor University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Geoff Barnard Senior Research Scientist, Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge (UK)
Olivia Torres Professor-Researcher (Human Genetics) Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Donald A. Kangas Professor of Biology Truman State University
Dennis M. Sullivan Professor of Biology and Bioethics Cedarville University
Robert D. Orr Professor of Family Medicine University of Vermont College of Medicine
Laverne Miller Clinical Associate Professor of Family Medicine Medical College of Ohio
S. Thomas Abraham Assistant Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology Campbell University School of Pharmacy
Professor of Anesthesiology Texas A&M Univ. Syst. Health Science Center
Donald F. Smee Research Professor (Microbiology) Utah State University
Colin R. Reeves Professor of Operational Research (Ph.D. Evolutionary Algorithms) Coventry University (UK)
Eugene K. Balon University Professor Emeritus, Department of Integrative
Biology University of Guelph
Chrystal L. Ho Pao Assistant Professor of Biology (Ph.D. Molecular Genetics,
Harvard U.) Trinity International University
Joel Brind Professor of Biology Baruch College, City University of New York
Jan Peter Bengtson Associate Professor (M.D., Ph.D. Intensive Care Medicine) University of Gothenburg (Sweden)
Timothy A. Mixon Assistant Professor of Medicine Texas A&M University
Ivan M. Lang Ph.D. Physiology and Biophysics Temple University
John G. Hoey Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology City University of New York Graduate School
Theodore J. Siek Ph.D. Biochemistry Oregon State University
Christian M. Loch Ph.D. Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Virginia
Charles A. Signorino Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Pennsylvania
Luke Randall Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology University of London (UK)
Jan Frederic Dudt Associate Professor of Biology Grove City College
Eduardo Sahagun Professor of Botany Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
Mark A. Chambers Ph.D. Virology University of Cambridge (UK)
Daniel Howell Ph.D. Biochemistry Virginia Tech
Jonathan D. Eisenback Professor of Plant Pathology Dept. of Plant Pathology and Weed Science Virginia Tech
Eduardo Arroyo Professor of Forensics (Ph.D. Biology) Complutense University (Spain)
Peter Silley Ph.D. Microbial Biochemistry University of Newcastle upon Tyne
E. Norbert Smith Ph.D. Zoology Texas Tech University
Peter C. Iwen Professor of Pathology and Microbiology University of Nebraska Medical Center
Luman R. Wing Associate Professor of Biology Azusa Pacific University
Wesley M. Taylor Former Chairman of the Division of Primate Medicine & Surgery New England Regional Primate Research Center, Harvard Medical School
Wayne Linn Professor Emeritus of Biology Southern Oregon University
Gregory D. Bossart Director and Head of Pathology Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution

Do you wish me to carry on, or are you going to try and move the goal posts?

Obviously you are unaware of "project Steve". http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

Today the list of scientists who DO NOT doubt Darwin’s theory AND have the first name of Steve sits at well over 1100(one-thousand-one-hundred). Considering only about 1% of scientists are named Steve, I’d say your attempt to show Evolution as a theory in crisis with a list of "dissenters" has been shown to be absurd.

Each one of those on that list of "Steves" had to voluntarily sign up to be on it. They all had to sign and support the following statement:

How many Steves were on your list? More than 1100? 😆

Edit to add insult to injury:

Back at ya! 😀

freerob

The list scottie is copying names from is most likely the one found at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php ,a website belonging to The Discovery Institute, now calling itself the Center For Science and Culture. The leading "Intelligent Design" advocacy group in the U.S. He should have cited his source but didn’t. I noticed quite a few of the names on both lists (the website’s and scottie’s).

If that is the reference source for scottie’s list of scientists it should be noted that there are many serious criticisms of how it was gathered. Mainly through a petition called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". Since the list was published, some who have signed on to it have dissented from the petition itself. Claims of being mislead into signing on to it and of misrepresentations were reported.

Only 80 of the original 700 signing the petition were biologists to answer canalon’s question since scottie tried to skate past it (if indeed this is his source, he didn’t cite a source).

All are welcome to review the wiki-article on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".

freerob

well done Freerob
At last some one is actually doing some homework.

As I said before and will say again, can you match name for name. Whatever the source at least these people have actually had the temerity to put their names out in public.
Do you see names such as Shapiro, or Koonin,( I will deal with your comment regarding him shortly) or Woese or any other of the evolutionary scientists who refute Darwinism. Of course not.

And why not. –because they don’t wish to be associated with ID or any other interpretation. They will critique from within but not commit the gross sin of siding with the opposition.
This is all about the "them and us" syndrome and nothing to do with facts. I will comment further on this list.

However let me move on for the moment to Shapiro

Nice little bit of rhetoric but please tell me was “Origin of Species” ever peer-reviewed before publication like all good scientific papers should, or as you put it was just speculative? 🙂

However what part of Shapiro’s “essays” if you like, are speculative and overstated.
Please enlighten me.
Also can you cite any peer-reviewed paper that actually contradicts what he states as observed facts.

By the way I am not an advocate of Shapiro’s views per se, but simply quote him as an example of the divide between Darwinists themselves. He clearly does not support Darwinian theory.

.

It may or may not be a common tactic for creationists/intelligent design proponents, but since I am neither, one or the other, your accusation lacks any power with me. Please read my previous posts.

Religions are belief systems. They do not rely on factual evidence to support their beliefs. That is why they are beliefs or points of view!!! They generally rely on sacred dogmas.

Now Is Darwinian theory simply a dogma ?
Well let’s see
Species arrive by common decent through natural selection sifting out random mutations. In other words random mutations produce a phenotypic change in an existing species and then that change remains, or is discarded by natural selection.

Now lets have the evidence please in a macro evolutionary sense.
No unsupported statements of any materialist philosophy counts as evidence as you well know.

So let me turn to Ernst Mayr the root of so much of my shame 🙂

So according to you Darwinian theory is a scientific fact. Yes?

Now these are the words of Ernst Mayr himself. I am not editing anything or taking him out of context. He simply argued his corner very rigorously.

So if the theory is a fact why does it need a supporting philosophy?
After all, other scientific facts don’t have,or indeed need, supporting philosophies.
Newton’s Laws on gravity, Kepler’s Laws of motion, Chargaff’s rule of GC% content etc etc.

The reason is simple, it is a philosophy. Mind you Mayr also describes it as a historical science.
Now that puts it on a par with Archaeology, and we all know how exact a science archaeology is don’t we?

If you were honest enough to acknowledge that, at best this theory is a material interpretation of what is believed to have happened then there is no problem, except of course for you it is a problem, because it put this on the same level as other interpretations.
So a dictat is issued – how does Mayr put it- and you so rightly quote him

So anyone who questions Darwinian Theory is not an educated person according to Ernst Mayr and you as one of his obedient acolytes simply parrots the same dictat as though it had some force.

That means that all the PHD scientists (I have already provided you with a very very small starting list of these ) who do not hold with the theory, are part of the uneducated masses.

Oh dearie me 🙂 ( It’s an english expression)

The Darwinian doctrine is a sacred doctrine that only the educated can comprehend.
Hmm!!! sounds very much like the principle driving force that was behind the Spanish inquisition.

Look if you don’t like being referred to as a religionist then don’t behave like a fundamentalist in religion.

I will take up “

” in my next post.

Scottie You said you want science. A list of name is just a butterfly collection it does not say anything on the larger population, the changes over time of the acceptance of the idea or anything interesting. This not science, this is anecdote.

You claimed that there is a reducing number of scientist backing up evolution, could you provide facts baking up your claim?

You claim that life as we see it is evidence for design. If this is true, and scince design imply action by an outer agent, what would this agent be? and how did it came to be? I remind you that you were the one that first called Occam’s razor in deciding what hypothesis should be accepted. Is an infinitely recursive loop simpler to accept than "spontaneous order from chaos"?

canalon
I will respond to your post but if I may I would first like to continue with freerob’s rather lengthy series of questions.

Promise I will return to you.

freerob
Now I will take up “About your design claims” i

Point 1
As regards the theory of design. Please get your facts straight. Do some research on for instance the theory of C K design.

However does design feature in biology?

This is what George V. Lauder of Harvard University has to say on the subject
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~glau … heoBio.pdf

So please tell has any scientist refuted this statement?

In fact so profuse is the recognition that some have sought to try to remove the word design from scientific literature.

Here is what Andrew Moore Editor-in-Chief of online library of Wiley has suggested. Have a read here.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 90011/full
Also see http://www.synbioworld.org/

What do you mean by this statement. There is plenty of literature teaching design theory. Perhaps you could be more precise. Are you saying that design is not a scientific concept?

Does Darwinian theory generate any predictions? If it does then it cannot be random or undirected.
So according to your logic then Darwinian theory is also as you put it useless and unscientific.

You really need to think more carefully before engaging in your rather rash rhetoric.

Now design meets even your requirements.

Lets take the digestive system of say, yourself.

From teeth to anus there is purpose is there not.
You know the food intake goes into your stomach, gets digested, produces the necessary fuel to power the cellular processes to keep you alive.
The waste parts of the food that your body cannot use you discharge through your anus.

Now does this tract have purpose.
Answer – Yes, fundamentally to keep you alive. There are some side issues like waste discharge. It also allows you to blow hot air from time to time.

Is there a process?
Answer – Yes, you can see that process depicted in any digestive tract diagram.

But Darwinian theory has no purpose – Right?
It is undirected — Right?

So for this tract to arrive by a Darwinian process some undirected and purposeless mutation(s) would have to have taken place in the genome — Right?

Lets ignore the fact that most mutations lose information instead of gaining information.

Where does this mutation process start? Is it at the teeth or at the anus?
Or does it start with an already existing digestive system?

But that means that the already existing digestive system must also have mutated from a previous digestive system.

But wait a minute don’t all these previous systems have purpose, and function and direction, all the attributes of design.
But common decent is a major plank in Darwinian theory. Yes?

So really it is design all the way back right to the very beginning is it not?

Now could you please explain to me, an obviously uneducated person, where purposeless and undirected processes fits into this scenario.

Now I don’t want you blowing any hot air at me, just give me the FACTS – please

I need to know.

Scottie,

Would you be an engineer, per chance?
This is unrelated to the discussion, and will not be discussed further, but I am curious…

There is no issue with the use of the word "design" in the above cited paper because the author clearly points out his definition of "design" as a biological structure relative to it’s function and the "designer" as adaptation through natural selection. In the introduction you quoted from, the author gives us his definition of design and designer. I probably wouldn’t use the word design to describe the result of an unguided process, however, as you point out, it’s common in the terminology. Not that the frequency of the use of the word design in any way gives it the meaning you wish it to have.

My issue is with YOUR use of the word design. You imply design in a guided manner but do not define a designer. Please clearly state your design hypothesis, including your "designer".

Using the author quoted above’s definitions, you arrive at Darwin’s theory. This is another example of you(scottie) attempting to misconstrue or mischaracterize what a cited example actually says. The article is actually really interesting if you read it. Does it refute natural selection in favor of a "design and designer"? Nope. That’s not what the paper discusses in any way, shape, or form.

Was the Grand Canyon designed? It has form and function. I suppose you could say it was if you include geologic forces as the designer. However, design is probably not the best word choice, which brings me to the article by Andrew Moore that you cited. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 90011/full

I strongly agree with Moore here. I have heard others propose similar ideas and agreed to that as well. Anthropomorphic terminology is a problem, and is even evidenced by you yourself scottie. In articles you have linked, you imply such a meaning to words like design when a different meaning is what was intended by it’s author.

I’m beginning to think there is a not a difference of opinion here in this thread so much as an attempt to lead a discussion astray by deception. The strategy you have used is this: The word design is used in an article and you ascribe an invocation of an agency, even though the author clearly did not. Or, if not an anthropomorphic misconception, you take a quote and attempted to twist it into a meaning it does not have in the broader context of the entire article, what is commonly called "quote mining". It’s a form of dishonesty. Also you use terms like "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in an almost derogatory manner. That’s an example of trying to write off the scientific consensus as mere "group-think", and it’s wrong. That’s what ID proponents do when their arguments can’t pass the scientific test. Claim the consensus is dogmatic and intolerant to new ideas.

I also want to address this nonsense:

How about:
Philosophy of Chemistry
Philosophy of Mathmatics
Philosophy of Physics

Yes, evolution is a FACT. Does it need a supporting philosophy? NO. What was stated by Mayr and others was that the unifying theory of biology, evolution by natural selection, opened the door for a Philosophy of Biology. It was as indeed as profound as Mayr stated in the article you linked.

Where you get it wrong is in trying to put the cart before the horse. The science behind Darwin’s theory came before any philosophy could be built upon it. Not vice-versa as you attempt to assert. Additionally, the philosophy that arose from Darwin’s theories was/is not playing some "supportive" role in propping the theory up as you suggest. It’s how we deal with the implications of a new way of understanding the natural world around us and our role in it. Just the same as Philosophy works when applied to Chemistry or Physics or Mathematics.

What is the following quote supposed to achieve?

Weren’t you repeatedly accusing others in this thread of using rhetoric? Hey pot, what color is that kettle again? 🙄

You call me religionist because I’m someone who agrees with the scientific consensus and argues the merits of a theory with zeal eh? Ridiculous. Also that list of PHD’s you’ve mentioned again is a punchline more than it is a reason to take the ID movement seriously. You admit the list came from a Creationist/Intelligent design website. You claim you aren’t one of "them", but you use their propaganda on a legitimate biology forum?

Also. Your abrasive, sarcastic, and passive aggressive tone really rubs me the wrong way. The floor is yours to spread some more fallacies draped in jargon and rhetoric I suppose.

😆 😆

Canalon

To answer your question
Yes I am an engineer. I am a retired Managing Director of a communications company. My main subject is communications engineering.

May I ask you to please think about this and ask yourself if it is explainable. I am not looking to you to post any explanation, just to think about it.

What is physically the difference between a living animal and the same animal at the moment of death.
The corpse, remains under the same laws of physics and chemistry as the living animal, does it not?
The same collection of molecules exist in the animal during the moments immediately before and after death.

Yet after this transition, will you as a biologist think about genes as being regulated, or would you refer to normal chromosome functioning?.

No molecules will be carrying signals and certainly there will be no structures that will recognise those signals.

Coded information and communication in their biological sense, will have disappeared completely.

If life is simply a material manifestation of arranged molecules, why is there this complete contrast between the living and the dead animal.
Physically, they are still the same are they not?

Now you are trying hard to explain that life is just a collection of molecules arranged, amazingly, not just by some functional design, but by of all things, randomly.

Darwin privately envisioned life as starting from some quiet little pond full of the right molecules wherein life first got started.

Scientific American in it’s September 2010 article entitled “Dust to Dust” page 58 describes the process of cell death

So here is all that is needed to start life off with. As Darwin envisioned a fluid rich in nutrients and we have that postulated “little pond”.

What then do these nutrients have to do?

Well it’s quite simple really.

The nutrients separate themselves into cell walls and enzymes. But of course actually these enzymes naturally digest those very cell walls. (But never mind lets carry on)

For some reason, lysosomes form to prevent that from happening.

Then the cells start taking in carbon dioxide from surrounding fluid to release oxygen. And viola there we have it Life! 🙂

Yet, you know as indeed I know that this does not happen, despite the conditions being so amenable.

What I find hard to understand is:-
What is it about this so obvious manifestation of evidence of some force operating beyond physics and chemistry, that you find so abhorrent to come to terms with.

Whatever this life force is, science is simply unable to explain, and yet not only do you seem to refuse to acknowledge this fact that is staring out at everyone, but you so readily appear to accept the notion that somehow and quite miraculously a random collection of molecules has come together and produced a living organism that has purpose, function and behaves predictably.

Is it not obvious that this life force whatever it may be, and clearly is quite apart from physics and chemistry, has to be present before life can manifest itself.

If scientists would have some idea as to what this life force is then it could perhaps be explained, but as it is science cannot explain it.
All we know with any confidence is where this life force comes from. You know it, I know it, every biologist knows it.
It comes from another life.

Scientists cannot even provide an agreed definition of what life is, let alone explain it.

This whole controversy is not about science, it is about different philosophies or religious beliefs that are trying to deal this question.

Ernst Mayr knew exactly what he was talking about when he described Darwin’s view as an extraordinary philosophic advance.

So coming again to your repeated question, can I name the designer?,–
No I cannot, because science cannot.
Does not your own tag line go something like this “ Science is proof without certainty….”

Yet you are trying to obtain a proof with certainty from me, which of course completes your tag line, rebutting creationists.

All anyone can ever do is provide a philosophical view that will probably be different from yours.
That of course will not be a scientific exchange, it will be a philosophical exchange.

So please tell me what prevents you from acknowledging that the materialist viewpoint you clearly hold (correct me if I am misrepresenting you) cannot be proved scientifically.

Ernst Mayr proudly acknowledged it as such.
However he put himself on the pedestal that clearly demeans anyone, that has a different view, as uneducated. This sort of arrogance does indeed permeate discussions like this and it does come from all sides of the debate.

Therefore it is not possible to enter into any rational discussion with that arrogant perspective as a controlling edict.

And that, as I have said before, is not a road I will go down, simply because of the way these exchanges quickly degenerate into shrill name and cat calling.

Now if you as a moderator would wish to start a thread on this subject with the strict rule that everyone’s views will be treated with respect, then I will happily have an input.
This will also give some freeness of speech for any views to be aired without the posters of those views having to cope with the distaste of the emotional demeaning that keeps taking place.

1- There is a theory that those doubting evolution are particularly common among engineers. No explanation, just correlation. It is inconsequential but funny, and indeed very often true. the good thing is that in spite of the general very poor understanding of biology (no, you are no exception), at least the argument with engineers are slightly more interesting that with the religious crowd.

2- For your little story, decomposition of living things are usually not leading to new life, because even in the deadest corpse is teeming with life which is extremely adept at using all source of energy to its benefits. And very efficient at it too. So even if a new life form were to emerge, it would be at such a competitive disadvantage that it would disappear quickly. (Think throwing a toddler in a hungry tiger cage to compete for food….).

3- You still have not answered my one simple question.

There is nothing theoretical about your comment.

You see engineers have to live in the real world of physical laws. They have to design and make things. Therefore they are bound by laws that make their projects possible.
They cannot philosophise or fantasize about matters, because philosophy and fantasy do not make things.

So that’s your best argument is it?
What part of biology have I got wrong?

I am not referring what decomposition may lead to.
Are you deliberately trying to miss-understand the point I was making?

My point was to try and help you to think that life is not a physical/chemical process.
Life uses physical and chemical processes and is something apart from them.

Darwinian theory in effect states that life is just a physical/chemical process and my “little story” as you put it simply shows that that is not so.

Even I, who only studied biology at college knows what Louis Pasteur proved.
Do go back to your school notes and read all about his experiments.
Or did you not learn that at school?.

Life only come from another pre-existing life.(that’s what Pasteur demonstrated and to date it has not been refuted)

Every biologist knows that, but those of a materialist philosophy then try to argue otherwise and as I have said before that number is reducing.

Of course micro-organisms (other living organisms) do infect and feed off the dead corpse, but corpse is dead and you know it. The life that was controlling that now dead copse is no longer there. It has gone, vanished , vamoosed, disappeared.:)

The biological processes in that corpse has wound down and no longer exists.

Are you seriously arguing that the dead corpse is somehow alive or with the right physical conditions could be made alive again?
Is that your contention?

Come on surely even you can do better than that.
I know, points you are unable to answer are somehow irrelevant, but only because you are not able to answer them.

You may wish to argue by issuing dictacts. That what religions do, but that only enhances my contention.

Again, I have and you know it.
You ask for a name as if that matters scientifically.
You are trying to hide behind a philosophical point to advance your claimed “scientific” view.

However have you even tried to describe how random, undirected processes can account for the functionality we observe in the cell?

Other than, ofcourse stating by – dictact – that it does.

That is your problem.
You are stuck with a doctrine that you can’t explain, you cannot prove, so you have to rely on these dictacts.

I have often asked priests and clergymen to explain the doctrine of the trinity. (you know how three persons can be one person).
The answers is always the same.

Well it is. It is a FACT. 🙂
Now how is your method any different?

I see no difference.
But then I have no imagination, after all I only a humble engineer:)

Thank you for your demonstartion of your ignorance and stupidity. That will be my last post in this thread.

Just for your education, i will nevertheless that death is not what you think. When an organism dies, it does not mean that all cells instantaneously dies simultaneously. In fact, all cells will die, but some might take way longer time depending on their requirements in food and oxygen. So life is still active, but the general system is unable to perform the coordinated activities that were allowed the survival of the organism. In case of a human, that would entail respiration, blood circulation and so on. Some cells that are bad are storing energy and with high energy needs (as neurons) will die quickly when those functions cease. Other like some hair and skin cells with very low requirement will be able to keep going for weeks, in their own little corner.
As an engineer you should think of it as a very complex machine with multiple independant subsystems where the central control dies. many of the subsystems will be able to carry (some of ) their functions automatically, but without order or significance. The machine itself is dead.

As for your engineer explanation, we pretty much agree on the reason of the correlation (used to work on complex and designed system) but in my view you need to add arrogance and ignorance (of biology) to the mix to explain creationism. And you sir are are an arrogant fool. Learn about biology before you talk.

Rapid advances in the study of genetics and molecular biology have produced additional insight into fundamental questions such as the origin of life on Earth. You should write a paper that provides an overview of Genetics engineering perspective

canalon

We are agreed then as you say the “machine” is dead.

Now if you had actually read what I did write, you would have understood I was describing a winding down process
I actually said

To add to the information I could have said that individual cell death takes anywhere from some minutes to perhaps a couple of days as the lack of blood flow starves the cell of the energy needed to maintain operations and so on and so forth.

However I assumed I was debating with a biologist who would have known these things.
But there you go, in my arrogance, I deemed it unnecessary.

However you do make a valid point

Indeed I have spent the last three years learning, which is why I have the “arrogance” to debate with an obviously intelligent biologist, on his own turf.

To demonstrate how much I have learned, not from my own research, but from those much more eminently qualified, I will take up kathreeds suggestion and present some of the latest research in genetics.

I appreciate you will not be saying anymore on the matter but perhaps others may be interested in what is coming to light.

I will of course support whatever I present with the necessary evidence. (as I have always done)
kathreeds

Thank you for your suggestion. A tremendous amount is being learned about cell functions.

One of the major areas of research is in the field of epigenetics.

The information is quite fascinating.

Since Watson and Crick identified the structure of DNA and Marshall Nirenberg along with Hargobind Khorana and Robert Holley broke the code of it, a central dogma in molecular biology solidified.

DNA codes RNA codes Protein.
DNA being the carrier of genetic information in organisms.

http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski … dogma.html

In the 1990’s it became evident that this simple concept of DNA encoding protein is not what is actually happening.

It became clear that the original length of DNA (the gene) is substantially altered before the protein encoding is accomplished.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8422976

In my post of the 20th May I provided some information relating to the way a gene is modified before protein is manufactured.
by scottie » Fri May 20, 2011 9:30 pm
about14351-84.html

My comment was

This was in effect introducing the subject of epigenetics into the discussion

You will find this site a useful introduction to the subject

http://epigenome.eu/en/1,1,0

I will take this a little further next.

so? How does that relate? 🙄

just a little joke 🙂
http://xkcd.com/154/

It seems to me that some of you have fallen into a classic creationist trap. You can tell by “Scottie`s” ever increasing length of arguments and his arrogance and his ”boys, if you can`t follow me, I will take it slow and easy” act. He`s showing off, obviously. He`s playing for an audience and that is really the tactics for creationists nowadays. Be strictly scientific, strictly unreligious and repeat as often as possible that the idea of evolution is really a belief system. I think it was obvious when “Scottie” stated that evolution is a fact, but only within species. To say that, you have a different motive than science. I hate to see these fake debates over and over again. I think they are harmful to forums like this and to science in general.

oldman

Thanks for the compliment.
It’s nice to have it recognised that I am sticking strictly to science and being un-religious.
I assumed that science is about just that.

I will therefore continue with the science and continue to keep religion out of the discussion.

So
Is the DNA sequence the Master controller of the cell?

We all begin life as a single cell containing an entire genome.
As the cell divides the chromosomes are faithfully replicated so that each daughter cell receives the same genome (There are some exceptions to this. For example in the human immune system.)
So how is it that the daughter cells then go down different pathways leading to different tissues in this process of differentiation?

The offspring of one cell will eventually gain the ability to expand and contract as part of a muscle, while another will take on a rigid form with a specialized ability to transmit electrical signals etc etc.
In the human genome there are about 200 different cell types..

This instruction set (genome) apparently does not contain all the instructions needed for cell growth.
These instructions are extra or above (epi) to the genome.

Now there is also another factor worthy of consideration.

The result of the Human Genome Project posed another problem.
It was expected that the human genome would contain about one hundred thousand protein coding genes. Instead it turned out to be only about twenty odd thousand.

This number is roughly about the same as a simple one millimeter long roundworm.

Genes are therefore far from the whole story.

Most of the human DNA (some 98.8%) does not code for proteins. The bulk of this non coding DNA was referred to as junk i.e. the evolutionary accumulation of meaningless genetic leftovers.

However as more information has surfaced an intriguing picture is revealed.
Non coding DNA accounts for only 10% of a one celled prokarote, only 32% in yeast, 75% in roundworms, 83% in insects, 91% in a pufferfish.
The more complex the organism the greater is the amount of this “junk”.
This is highlighted in this paper
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 4/abstract

The above is a direct quote from the above abstract.

So we have gone from “junk” to the primary measure of our evolutionary advance, as organisms have got more complex. 🙂

So a reasonable question to ask would be.

How does Darwinian theory of random mutations of the genome explain this 98.8% “junk” in the human genome and which incidentally is distinctly non-random?

This is how cell biologist Lenny Moss reviews the situation in his book “ What Genes can’t do”

Once upon a time it was believed that something called “genes” were integral units, that each specified a piece of a phenotype [that is, a trait], that the phenotype as a whole was the result of the sum of these units, and that evolutionary change was the result of new genes created by random mutation and differential survival.
Once upon a time it was believed that the chromosomal location of genes was irrelevant, that DNA was the citadel of stability, that DNA which didn’t code for proteins was biological “junk,” and that coding DNA included, as it were, its own instructions for use.
Once upon a time it would have stood to reason that the complexity of an organism would be proportional to the number of its unique genetic units. (Moss 2003, p. 185)

http://books.google.com/books?id=AGm7Tg … ss&f=false

The evidence now is that the resources for the management of cell functions reside, in part, in these non-coding protein areas as well as other areas distributed throughout the cell.
Some recent experiments show how important the role of RNA is in phenotypic variation.

I will point to evidence next.

scottie: I highly doubt, that was a compliment

But go on and continue with your long posts, which will noone read and answer to 😉

jackbean

And there I was thinking I was being funny.
🙂

I am not sure if Scottie is being harmful. He sure is not debating, as his constant refusal to answer my simple question demonstrate, and he is long winded and not very interesting. But I think that there is also a need to counterbalance the substance of his arguments to show their flaws, not in order to convince him, but to prevent those who could be convinced that there is some substance in his demonstration. So pointing out that his argument of design is essentially circular (nothing can be without design, so there must be a designer that is something [back to start]) is essential.
However I do not think that interacting with him is useful. He demonstrates that his part of the discussion is only a way to make his points irrespectively of any arguments he is presented with, so I have no problem in using the same strategy.

So I take it that Scottie still refuses to give any information about his theory. Science is not a secret society . If you want to keep secrets I would suggest keeping a diary.

Who needs a diary when the evidence is publicly available.
Canolan’s question has been answered.
It is just that he does not like the answer so he invents arguments about circular reasoning.
His problem is that he has not asked the scientific question.
So let me help

How about this most important one.

Is my understanding of Functional Design falsifiable?

Now this would be a reasonable question.
But of course he is unable to argue scientifically,so he tries to get me to name the designer, as if that has some scientific merit.
But that is his only bolt hole so I suppose he has to dive into it.

So lets deal with what would falsify design hypothesis and also what would falsify the neo-darwinian theory.

For a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable.
Yes? no one is going to argue with that are they?

Lets start with my view.
We all see functional design in the cell and no one seriously argues with that.
The question is how did this functional design come about.

My understanding is that an outside agency is responsible.

To be regarded as science then it must be falsifiable.
So once again, is this understanding falsifiable?
I answer Yes, it can be falsified, and there is nothing “secretive” about this.

Every one is aware that functional design (whether good, or not so good or even downright bad) displays itself with certain properties.
1) The function has a purpose. ( i.e. It goes from A to B with C as it’s goal )
2) Method by which that purpose is achieved. (How does it go from A to B)
3) It would not contain parts or units that had no function toward the purpose.

Therefore, falsifying this hypothesis would require that parts of the genome were non functional. Now if that was the case then that would be an argument against my hypothesis.

So, all you have to do provide evidence that any part(s) of the genome are non functional and my hypothesis is in trouble.
There you are, I have told you what you need to show.
Should be quite simple, shouldn’t it?

Now, the Darwinian or the neo Darwinian view is that this functional design has come about by random mutations of the genome filtered by natural selection with all life having developed from a common ancester.

If this theory is to be regarded as scientific then again it must also be falsifiable.
So What would falsify this theory?

All you need to do is simply reveal what would be required to falsify this theory.
Darwin himself has made some clear statements in that regard in his “Origin of Species.” So you should have no difficulty.

So lets keep all the philosophy, religion, and misrepresentation of my posts out of this discussion and cut to the chase.

Come on canolan,
I know you don’t wish to continue debating with me but surely even you can rise to this simple challenge.
After all you are the biologist and I am but (how did you put it?) an arrogant fool 🙂

btw. I will continue pointing to more evidence on epigenetics.

I just noticed this post today and it seems interesting. So if i understand u correctly Ur not saying evolution doesn’t occur just that it doesn’t occur randomly. is this what ur saying?

Abe
Thank you for your question.
I joined this forum on the 12th April. My first post is here.
about14351-36.html

48 posts later, along with a certain amount of abuse being directed towards me, 🙂 has resulted in an unanswered challenge.

The theory of design is a valid scientific theory simply because it can be falsified.
I have shown how it can be falsified and it has resulted in my challenge to do just that.

I am waiting for someone to inform how the Darwinian theory can be falsified.
It has to be falsifiable if it to be counted as scientific.

Things have gone silent on both fronts.

So to recap for your benefit and answer your question

There is good evidence that evolution (variation) does occur, but only within species.
There is some accumulating evidence that undermines this process as purely random.
The field of epi genetics is beginning to show this.

I have been arguing that the (Darwinian or neo-Darwinian) hypothesis, random mutations filtered by natural selection from a common ancestor is not supported by the evidence we see in the functioning of the cell.

I have contended that design is the correct understanding of how the cell appeared.

I do not support either the creationist or the ID understandings as I have found difficulties with them both, although I have not explained my reasons, simply because this debate has been around Darwinian hypothesis or evolution as it seems to be commonly called.
Hope that answers your question.

Some further evidence that impacts on Darwinism

Firstly by way of some basics for us non biologists!!

Chromosomes normally come in pairs in the genomes of mammals. One is inherited from the mother and the other from the father. So any given gene occurs twice, with one version or "allele” located on the first chromosome of a pair and the other on the second.
When the two alleles are identical, the organism is said to be homozygous for that gene; when the alleles are different, the organism is heterozygous.

As an example, there are mice that in their natural wildtype state are dark-coloured.
This colour is partly dependent on a gene known as Kit. These mice are normally homozygous (i.e. both alleles are identical) for this gene. However, when one of the Kit alleles is replaced with a certain mutant gene, the now heterozygous mouse developed white feet and a white tail tip.

Now when these mutant mice were bred together, some of the offspring were again normal wildtype, which would be expected.

However these normal wildtype mice maintained the same white spots that were characteristic of the mutants.
Mendel’s laws of inheritance were apparently being violated.

A trait was being displayed despite the absence of it’s corresponding gene. Something epigenetic was going on in the inheritance of the offspring.

It appears that RNA is playing a role in this inheritance across generations
http://cambridge.academia.edu/AlysonAsh … enerations

This is further evidence that DNA is not the only information set that the cell is using.

Now why is this important for theory.

It is because Darwinian thinking has centered on the genome as being the driver for phenotypic change. Gradualism being the operative process.

However the evidence is, that the cell as a whole determines what an organism is. Neo Darwinism has no answer for this.

One of the most outstanding examples is the caterpillar and butterfly. Both organisms have the same genome, yet how different they are in phenotype and all this change takes place within about two weeks.

I will of course provide more evidence of this epi genetic control that is rapidly coming to light.

First of all, Darwin had no idea about DNA. At the time, when he lived, the DNA was not known yet, especially not as an inheritance material.
Second, all of your cells contain the same genome, yet they are different. However, that’s not epigenetics, only regulation of genes. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with evolution.

Where does it say that similar genotype aren’t capable of producing different phenotypes?

By the way why do you use the term "Darwinism"? Does it make you feel any better?

JackBean » Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:11 pm

Correct, but what has that to do with the point I was raising?
I have previously stated that the theory I keep referring to is the standard or neo Darwinin theory.

Actually all cells appear not to contain the same genome.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 131449.htm

However perhaps you could describe to me what you mean by evolution. If it is the standard neo Darwinian process then it has everything to do with evolution theory.
However you may have a different view of evolution. Do you?

Epi genetics is the study of control other that genomic control.
That is what epi means — extra or above.
Also you are correct. Neither epigenetics nor gene regulation have anything to do with evolution.

The whole point that I am arguing is whether these control mechanisms came about by random mutations of the genome from an existing organism.
The theory of “evolution” says it does and I am arguing it does not.

by Genotype » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:58 pm

The standard theory states that random mutations to the genome cause (gradually) the different phenotypic changes does it not?
Are you subscribing to a different theory?

I use the term “Darwinisn” simply because that is a term used by many adherents to the theory themselves.
I feel neither better or worse in using it.

Would you like me to use another term? If so please let me know and I will try to oblige so long as it is not in any way abusive or inflammatory.

The Universal Code Dilemma of Darwinism.(or however Genotype would like me to refer to it as)

In 1986 Richard Dawkins (The selfish gene) claimed that the genetic code is universal across all organisms, and cited this as evidence, indeed as near conclusive proof that every living organism in our planet descended from a single common ancestor.

In his 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth he reiterates this claim.

“the genetic code is universal, all but identical across animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea and viruses. The 64-word dictionary, by which three letter DNA words are translated into 20 amino acids and one punctuation mark, which means ‘start reading here’ or ‘stop reading here,’ is the same 64-word dictionary wherever you look in the living kingdoms (with one or two exceptions too minor to undermine the generalization)”

He goes on to explain why this is important.

Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation…this would spell disaster. (2009, p. 409-10).(my emphasis)

Is Dawkins correct?
If the Darwinian mechanism is true then yes, he is correct.

However is that mechanism correct?

There are in fact 17 known variations of the genetic codes that have been compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/ta … =cgencodes

Not one or two minor exceptions but at the latest count 17.
And are they minor?

Well take the organism Mycoplasmas.
The stop codon in the human code is UGA
In Mycoplasmas UGA codes for tryptophan.

In human cells therefore when the ribosome meets up with UGA in the messenger RNA it stops translating. (UGA is code for STOP)

In Mycoplasma the ribosome would insert tryptophan into the mRNA and would continue translating until it reached the Mycoplasma stop codon.

Is that serious?
Well Craig Venter explained it well to Richard Dawkins and Paul Davies during a discussion at Arizona State University earlier this year.

Watch here from about 6min:30sec to about 11min:45

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/t … life-panel
enjoy

Contary to what Richard Dawkins believes There is no tree of life. .

This is from a bio-engineer who knows what he is talking about. At least Paul Davies concedes to Venter.
Dawkins however is really troubled about this.

Listen carefully to his response to Venter and Venter’s polite chuckle.

In my next post I will show how the Darwinian mechanism fails to show how a prokaryotic cell could have evolved into a eukaryotic cell

Hmmm. So, once, a few billion years ago created a reasonable membranes, standardized first version of the peptide-nucleic molecular technology, and armed with her​​, travel to the Metagallaktik. Then somewhere a bit more than once the standard has changed, but the basics remain the same. But the main thing – the version of Darwinism, according to which natural selection is combined not with the "Evolution" – from simple replicators to the "crown of creation", but with vice versa, the "Devolution" from a reasonable universal form – to super-specialized species of dead-end.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fspacenoology.agro.name%2F
Excuse me my inglish Google 🙁

Does it state mutations alone can cause pheontypic changes? That seems to be your point, right? I’d love some sources on that. Phenotype is usually the result of both genetic and environmental factors.

And what you’ve talked above is metamorphosis, what has it got to do with TOE?

Theory of evolution please. We’re thankful to Darwin that he’s formulated perhaps the one of the most solid theories in science, but modern TOE has come leaps and bounds since. And we’re talking about genetics, I don’t see why you’d call it "Darwinian" anyways.

Oh btw I’m a newtonian too 😉

By the way, I’d like you to cite some sources before you respond, I can barely understand what you’re saying.

Leopol
Thank you for your comment.
As I understand, you appear to dispute the Darwinian theory yourself.
I wish I could do as well in Ukrainian as you do in English.

Genotype
Thanks for your response.
My apologies for not responding sooner but I have been away and am only just catching up on things.

Lets start with some sources of (neo)darwinian theory
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2408095
In part this source states

It goes on to describe challenges to this theory, in particular by Gould where it quotes Gould in part

There are perhaps differing views at the edges of this but the foundation pillar is the random mutation of genome filtered by natural selection from a common ancester and that this process is gradual. You just have to read Dawkins, Coyne and indeed others to note that gradualism is prominent. Small incremental steps of random change.

Also try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

Sorry you are having trouble understanding my posts. I will try and be a little clearer.

My reference to metamorphosis simply illustrates that changes in phenotype do not require changes in genotype as the theory states. Something else is at work.
This contrasts with the Dawkin’s "selfish gene" and "mount improbable" for instance.

Good to hear you are a Newtonian. He did get a lot right. 🙂

I agree

Nope, the theory doesn’t state that mutations ALONE can cause change in phenotypes. Where does Dawkins or anyone say that?

to scottie

Yes? Ukrainian? And I try to write in Russian … This is very good. I can easily understand what translate Google from English! Then take a look here is more!

We almost all remember from biology: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This is according to the theory of evolution. And from the standpoint of the theory devolution – "ontogeny repeats metamorphosis of primary universal amphibians". From the standpoint of those of amphibians, our "embryo" – it’s unfortunate larva, devoid of happiness independent existence during the most exciting stages of childhood – from the stage myuller-larve! 😀

Leopol

Nice sense of humor. I must remember that one. 🙂

Genotype
Please read my post in it’s entirety. I responded to your request to provide citation..
I did with the direct quote from “A Neo Darwinian commentary of Macroevolution”
That very specifically states

Now if you disagree with that postulate then your disagreement is not with me but with the authors of the commentary.
I also did state very clearly that

So I standby my statement.

The whole interest in the study of epigenetics is precisely because the understanding that mutations of the genome are the driver for the theory is rapidly being eroded.
Why else are distinguished scientists like Margulis, Koonan and many others distancing themselves from the neo-Darwinian hypothesis ?

Richard Dawkins “Selfish Gene” recounts a gene centric view of change.

In his book “Climbing Mount Improbable”
Well —Wikipedia describes the book this way

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

If you read the summary of the modern synthesis you will note that the again the evolution of species revolves around gradual genomic changes.
Check it out here.
Summary of the modern synthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evo … _synthesis

btw I have repeatedly tried in past posts to get my detractors to elaborate what actual theory or hypothesis they subscribe to. But none one yet has seen fit to respond.

You disagree with me with a NOPE, however I don’t know what your understanding is.
Would you be prepared to elaborate.

Thanks

I would now like to continue

The theory of common descent, simply postulates that all life evolved from one kind of organism and that each species arose from another species that preceded it in time. Each group of organisms shares a common ancestor.

The prokaryote cell is postulated to have arisen before the eukaryote cell.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … mbiosis_03

This is a challenge to the standard theory because random mutations in the genome is clearly not the answer.

Therefore how does, or what is the mechanism that turns a cell without a nucleus ie a prokaryote into a cell with a nucleus a eukaryote. There are some similarities between the two types of cell, however there are also many other differences as well.

This is where the Endosymbiotic theory enters, to postulate the mechanism by which this all came about.

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses … osymb.html
The Endosymbiotic Theory first postulated by Lynn Margulis in the 1967.

However Lyn Margulis rejects the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and Natural selection.
http://discover.coverleaf.com/discoverm … pg=68#pg68

So let’s take her starting point.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html
When you read the above it all sounds very plausible.

So What is the actual evidence?
The simple answer is there is none.
Just check out the papers listed below.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 6888900228
http://memoirs.gsapubs.org/content/198/121.abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 3779902382
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~wettum/vakken/st … er%201.pdf
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch … earth.html

What we do have is an awful lot of speculation.
The fuel for all this speculation is simple to understand.

Life could not have got started naturally in an atmosphere that contained oxygen.
Any schoolboy chemist would be able to explain the chemistry of why that cannot happen.

I could of course go into the physics and chemistry of this should anyone wish to dispute this. In fact I would welcome someone to rebut this.

This theory therefore falls at the first evidential hurdle.
My point is simple. Someone needs to produce some evidence other than tall tales about what may have led to an early earth atmosphere containing no oxygen.
Speculation is not science.
Of course there is a lot more but lets leave that for another post.

Yes, you’ve collected all the basic propositions around which is a long argument. It’s all about, I repeat once again – in the synthesis of the theory of evolution (from simple replicators to "crown selection") and natural selection. But personally, I abandoned this "evolution" and replace it with "devolution"! And this "Darwinism" was stable enough! http://translate.google.com/translate?h … ge_id%3D82
That think is IRREVERSIBLE the loss of a free stage for larvae placed our "embryo" in the egg, then – in the genital tract for pregnancy. But the frog "embryo" is placed in the egg stage only with fish (Turbellaria And today, there is also a form of free-floating planula!)! Hence, the ancestors of amphibians also have the same nymphs in their voluntary metamorphosis! But this is Stegocephalia! So, coelacanth, then ihtiostega, akantostega – this is not adult organisms, but the intermediate stages of metamorphosis Stegocephalia! Oh, how we lie to many paleontologists for this silly theory of evolution! 😛
A modern fish, respectively – the victim of neoteny as the axolotl, in which the land morphology all lost. But in flatworms (parasite – fasciola) stage of the fish – adolescariae …

scottie: you are again and again providing just piece of information so that it looks nice for your picture, right?
The endosymbiotic theory does not say, how eukaryotes evolved, but how did we obtain the mitochondria and chloroplasts.

The actual evidence are genetic data of plastids, mitochondria and bacteria. It has nothing to do with the oxygen level.

I’m sure that you are much more than a schoolboy chemist, so you will be for sure able to explain to me, why couldn’t life evolved, right? And NO LINKS! I won’t read any links, I won’t read anything what you won’t type by yourself into this forum, so stop posting plenty of articles. Noone is reading that anyway.

So the answer to these questions from the perspective of macro-devolution !

You know, as different from each other different "experts" in the termite hill? And termites – it’s obviously – a relic of the paleo-civilization. Cells in multi-cellular organism – and it’s so clear. Too – an obvious relic paleo-civilization! Well, some specialized Protista – members of the first communities of myxomycetes more billion years ago – had a specialty: work with photosynthetic bacteria. A mitochondrion domesticated even earlier – to multicellularity! Planted this bacterium in a membrane interesnub pocket and used as a generator … Spent the most appropriate selection of the mitochondria … Then plastids selected such that proliferated in the membrane pockets, but chloroplasts evolved into active only at a special incentive-team. And – "Cambrian explosion"? Also a consequence of some of the early Cambrian paleo-civilization! Twists in the caste society with a global division of labor morphological polymorphism … Then different castes in a separate race, species.
😉

http://translate.google.com/translate?j … ge_id%3D32

I can’t help but to think that Scottie is a Turing test stuck in a cycle of sorts. 😀

jackbean

That is what any rebuttal is all about.
If you disagree with me then you should do likewise. Rebut with evidence.

A prokaryote cell is a cell without a nucleus or other membrane-bound organelles
A eukaryote cell contains structures enclosed within membranes. These structures include a nucleus that contains dna, a mitochondria that also contains dna or likewise chloroplasts.

Now you should have noticed that I provided two citations in introducing the theory. The first that does not mention the early conditions and the second that does postulate the early conditions.

In fact the first from Berkley is entitled “From prokaryotes to eukaryotes”
Pretty clear I would argue.

My critique of the theory cantered on the early conditions, and the speculation that surrounds those conditions.

I would encourage you to read carefully what I have written.
I wrote
This is where the Endosymbiotic theory enters, to postulate the mechanism by which this all came about.

My criticism was about the mechanism (i.e. the endosymbiotic idea).
Endosymbiotic theory encompasses all the organelles that are enclosed in membranes.

The theory is about the origin of the organisms. I am surprised you miss such an obvious point. This thread is all about theories of origins.

For sure I do have fond memories about my schooldays 🙂
My last 50 odd posts have dealt in some detail how life could not have evolved in the way it is being promoted.

I appreciate you don’t like citations, however without citations I would simply be positing personal opinions. Science advances through proper documentation of research and therefore citations are important in explaining scientific matters. I would encourage you to read any accredited citation in order to fully appreciate,that any statement does have proper support.

I will therefore of course continue to support my statements with proper citations. Whether you choose to read and check them out is for you to decide.

I was not aware that this forum catered for advertsiments.

Jackbean

Genotype wants me to provide citations and you don’t want me to.
So what I suggest is that you read my posts that don’t include citations and Genotype read those with citations. That way both of you will be more comfortable. 🙂

This one is for you .

Let me try and consolidate my views as to why life could not have evolved by any natural process but as a result of design by an outside agency.

By evolved I mean some chemical combination of molecules (non life) somehow turning into some living organism.
This life in turn changes into other forms of life due to random processes acting on the organism

Let’s take the supposedly simple prokaryote cell.

This cell is hundreds of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

There is a tough, flexible membrane that acts something like a brick wall surrounding a factory. It would take some 10,000 layers of this membrane to equal the thickness of a sheet of paper.
But this membrane wall is no simple brick wall.

This membrane shields the contents of the cell from a hostile environment, however it is not solid. It allows small molecules such as oxygen to pass in and out but blocks larger and more complex molecules from entering without permission. It also prevents the useful molecules within the cell from leaving.

There are special protein molecules embedded in this membrane wall that act like doors.
Some of these proteins have a hole through the middle that allow only certain types of molecules in and out of the cell.
Other proteins are open on one side of the membrane and closed on the other.
They have a docking site shaped to fit a specific substance, so that when the particular substance docks, the other end of the protein opens to allow the cargo through.

As you should already know this activity is just a very small part of the protective wall surrounding even the simplest of cells.

Now I don’t need to go into any further depth to ask some simple questions

Does this membrane (wall) have a purpose? Answer — Clearly yes
Does it have function to fulfil that purpose? Answer — Again yes
Does it have predictability, i.e. can we know what will and what wont be allowed through? Answer — yes.

Are these all the attributes of design and with a specific purpose by an outside agency?
Again the answer is yes, with the proviso that nothing else can explain these attributes.

So, is there another possibility?

If you contend that there is then please explain what that can be.

Now I have asked for those who disagree with me, and that includes both you and genotype, to put their own viewpoints or theories forward so that they can be scrutinised.
Nobody — including you, has come up with any explanation that you may wish to be held up to scrutiny.

So why not?
There is a concept that is referred to as “wilful or deliberate blindness”

Is that what is going on here?

Jackbean

Genotype wants me to provide citations and you don’t want me to.
So what I suggest is that you read my posts that don’t include citations and Genotype read those with citations. That way both of you will be more comfortable.:)

This one is for you .

Let me try and consolidate my views as to why life could not have evolved by any natural process but as a result of design by an outside agency.
By evolved I mean some chemical combination of molecules (non life) somehow turning into some living organism.
This life in turn changes into other forms of life due to random processes acting on the organism

Let’s take the supposedly simple prokaryote cell.

This cell is hundreds of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

There is a tough, flexible membrane that acts something like a brick wall surrounding a factory. It would take some 10,000 layers of this membrane to equal the thickness of a sheet of paper.
But this membrane wall is no simple brick wall.

This membrane shields the contents of the cell from a hostile environment, however it is not solid. It allows small molecules such as oxygen to pass in and out but blocks larger and more complex molecules from entering without permission. It also prevents the useful molecules within the cell from leaving.

There are special protein molecules embedded in this membrane wall that act like doors.
Some of these proteins have a hole through the middle that allow only certain types of molecules in and out of the cell.
Other proteins are open on one side of the membrane and closed on the other.
They have a docking site shaped to fit a specific substance, so that when the particular substance docks, the other end of the protein opens to allow the cargo through.

As you should already know this activity is just a very small part of the protective wall surrounding even the simplest of cells.

Now I don’t need to go into any further depth to ask some simple questions

Does this membrane (wall) have a purpose? Answer — Clearly yes
Does it have function to fulfil that purpose? Answer — Again yes
Does it have predictability, i.e. can we know what will and what wont be allowed through? Answer — yes.

Are these all the attributes of design and with a specific purpose by an outside agency?
Again the answer is yes, with the proviso that nothing else can explain these attributes.

So, is there another possibility?

If you contend that there is then please explain what that can be.

Now I have asked for those who disagree with me, and that includes both you and genotype, to put their own viewpoints or theories forward so that they can be scrutinised.
Nobody — including you has come up with any explanation that you may wish to be held up to scrutiny.

So why not?
There is a concept that is referred to as “wilful or deliberate blindness”

Is that what is going on here?

For those who accept citations in support of posts.

Accordingly to Freeman/Herron’s Evolutionary Analysis Chapter 17, there are currently about 4 different hypotheses regarding Origin of Life.
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_freeman_evo … index.html

Here they are with their comments in an end of chapter summary questions.

"The "universal gene-exchange pool" hypothesis proposes a time when genomes were modular, and when organisms assembled their genomes from a common pool. It is not yet clear whether this system is stable and feasible, or whether it could give rise to Darwinian natural selection.

The ring-of-life hypothesis proposes that eukaryotes arose from a fusion of archaeans and bacteria. However, this hypothesis cannot explain where eukaryotes got their unique genes, and how fusion could have occurred in the two groups that lack a cytoskeleton.

The chronocyte hypothesis proposes that eukaryotes arose from a long-vanished lineage of "chronocytes", one of which engulfed an archaean that became the eukaryotic nucleus. No such chronocytes exist today, but perhaps the eukaryotes’ unique genes represent a remnant of the genome of a chronocyte ancestor.

Finally, the "three viruses, three domains" hypothesis integrates viruses into the picture, proposing that (a) viruses are a remnant of the RNA World, (b) viruses evolved DNA during arms-race coevolution with their hosts, and (c) three such viruses then converted the three domains from RNA to DNA. Evidence from viral genomes offers a modest amount of support for this hypothesis, though more viral genomes are needed to thoroughly test the hypothesis.

These four hypotheses offer creative and varied ideas for the solution of the puzzle of life’s origins. Which of these four is true, if any, we cannot say yet. But the more we learn, the more it appears that the early history of life on Earth was strange indeed."

You will notice that they all begin with a premise that life is already in existence.
So for a start this analysis has nothing to do with actual origin of life.

What is really interesting however is that one of these hypothesis has had to invent a new life form as a starter for the hypothesis.
It is called the chronocyte. 🙂

What is more interesting is that this mythical creature is actually the subject of a paper that appeared in PNAS entitled
The origin of the eukaryotic cell: A genomic investigation
http://biologia.uab.es/biocomputacio/tr … 20endo.htm

So here we have an august scientific body resorting to or endorsing mythical creatures to try and substantiate scientific ideas.

Is this what science is being reduced to?

There is a body of opinion within this debating controversy that argues this way.—

The Darwinian evolutionary process does not engage with origin of life scenarios, but only addresses how an existing organism has changed in form and function to produce the variety of life forms that exist today.
The process that achieves this is the random variations of the genome that change form and function and is then filtered by Natural selection.

The problem that even this argument has is, it fails to account for the actual observations we note in cellular processes.

What is being discovered in cell investigation is not just a linear array of code in DNA, but a total integrated information processing system.

We are learning that DNA is not even nearly the whole answer.

DNA codes for proteins that do the important work in the cells.

These proteins though have to be arranged into more complex or higher cell structures
Cell types then have to be arranged into tissues.
Tissues in turn have to be arranged into organs.
These organs in turn have to be arranged into entire body plans, the forms we see in life.

These higher forms of organization are not fully understood, but it is clear that there are higher orders of information in the cell that are above DNA

DNA does not control all those higher orders of information.

DNA codes for proteins.

So there is this information hierarchy in the cell, and DNA is at the lowest level.
So clearly DNA alone does not control the formation of body plans.

Now the problem for the neo Darwinian synthesis (the modern theory of evolution in any of it’s forms) is that this theory attempts to describe how random mutations in DNA (the lowest level of information in this hierarchy) is responsible for new biological forms.

Since DNA alone is not responsible for biological form, no amount of mutations, random or even otherwise can produce new organisms.

This is why this materialist Darwinian concept is defunct.
It can’t account for the origin of form let alone life itself.

It is therefore very clear to me why I have had no responses to my repeated requests from those critical of my postings, to put on record what their actual scientific understanding is on this subject.

Sorry I must correct myself here, one critic did accuse me of lacking imagination. 🙂

Evolutionary theory is a materialist philosophy and not a scientific concept.

Quorum Sensing

Following on from my post on the hierarchical layers of information in the cell, further information on this has emerged in recent years.

There is the phenomenon of “quorum sensing”.
This is a mechanism by which bacteria communicate with one another.
The purpose of this communication is to establish the population density of a species of any of these micro-organisms within a local environment.

A single bacterial cell that secretes a toxin into an organism is not likely to cause any harm to the host. However if there are sufficient numbers around a host, joint expression of the toxin is more likely to have the desired effect.
In other words this communication allows bacteria to collectively regulate gene expression.

Professor Bonnie Bassler of Princeton University gave a TED talk recently where she explains this phenomenon far more interestingly and in layman terms.

Well worth watching.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler … icate.html

When you have watched this you may well wonder what Darwinian process led to this coordinated activity. 🙂

Evolution is a scientific fact – this is not an opinion, there is a plethora of evidence that validates that statement.

You have the stink of a Creationist that is merely trolling this particular topic thread.

I produce evidence from accredited sources and you respond with philosophic and defamatory rhetoric.

Is that your best argument? 🙂

Which part of "evolution is a fact" as you put it, is a fact?

http://chaos.swarthmore.edu/courses/SOC … ellogg.pdf

From your supplied link

This is how Kellogg introduces his proposal.

Point 1
His first sentence clearly states the best documented aspect of evolution is “ change with respect to time of characteristics of a species.

Are you not aware that this change is within a species.

I am not aware that anyone disagrees with this micro evolutionary change.
Not even creationists as far as I am aware.
May I encourage you to read what I have written, not what you think I have.

Point 2
Kellogg clearly recognised this and that is why he in this paper agrees with Eldridge and Gould on their “proposal” of punctuated equilibra

So he doesn’t agree with gradualism but prefers punctuated equilibrium.

Again are you not aware that these are proposals or hypothesis and not fact as you have so confidently asserted

Point 3
Let me refer you to his website here
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/user/Da … blications
This is what he states are his interests

My interests are in three fields of study:
1. Evolutionary Biology, particularly the tempo and mode of evolution. I pursue the long continuous records of siliceous microfossils in deep-sea sediment cores to test hypotheses about the rate and timing of morphologic change – is it continual, continuous, or episodic; what does that tell us about the nature of evolution at and above the species level? I am also interested in the more purely philosophical questions of species individuality, and the ethical implications of evolutionary biology…….

Notice he presents his hypothesis. Of course he is not sure whether change is continual, continuous, or episodic.

Now if you wish to present hypotheses as facts then may I suggest you get a clearer understanding of the meaning of terms used in science.

how does the DNA thing and quorum sensing provide proofs against evolution?

Jackbean

May I refer you to my post below.

about14351-168.html
by scottie » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:44 pm

There I explained that there are different levels of information that govern cell processes.

The DNA coding resides at the lowest level and codes for protein.

Above that, is a level of information that differentiates into cell types that then have to be arranged into tissues.
We don’t know where the information that controls this process resides.

Above that then, we have information that controls the arrangement of the tissues into organs
We we don’t know where that information resides.
These organs then have to be arranged into body plans, the forms we see in life.
Again ditto

Now these higher levels of organization go beyond the DNA level.
In other words DNA does not control these higher order processes.
DNA controls the form and expression of proteins.

This is why changes in DNA (however incurred) can only alter the protein level.
Now Darwinian theory ( I have to assume that you subscribe to Darwinian theory) only deals with mutations to DNA.

Therefore you can mutate DNA as much as you like and no new forms of organisms will arise.

Quorum sensing is just another demonstration of the higher orders of information that control cell processes.

In fact it appears that the information being used is above even cell level.

You will have noticed that Bonnie Bassler explained that there is communication not just between bacteria of the same species but also between different species.

All this information is quite definitely not being controlled by DNA.

Therefore evolution theory of any description that is based on DNA modifications simply cannot account for the forms and communication levels we see in nature.

What makes these theories even more unrealistic,is that they are all firmly rooted in the notion of random modifications of DNA.
Yet all over we see highly non-random structures.
I have covered this is previous posts.

It is not my intention to destroy anyone’s belief. People have different belief systems and I feel they should be respected even if one disagrees with them.

The problem evolutionary theory has is that it is portrayed as a scientific fact, and has been made into a dogma that has to be obeyed.
Anyone who dares to oppose it is branded some sort of a heretic.

So if something is portrayed as a scientific fact then it has to be shown to be so using known science. If it can’t be then it is simply another philosophy.

Clearly evolutional theory fails in this regard, as I have been trying to show over these past months.

The creationists are also entitled to believe whatever they want to and I also believe that their view should be respected.

However if they (and many of them do) claim that the universe was created in 6 24 hour days because the genesis account in the bible states that, then I have to take issue with that as well. There are other issues as well.

The genesis account says nothing of the kind and I suppose in due time I will be called on to prove it.

Now as regards the ID community.
Well, while they have a lot of good science they call upon, I again find there is not a consistency in their composite view.
I can go on to explain if asked, but I think this posting is long enough.

Hope that answers your question.

Please correct me if I’m wrong on this, but aren’t all known viruses parasitical? That is, they are basically reproductive molecules that require the use of another organism’s host cells to replicate themselves. The virus takes over the cell’s own DNA and causes it to replicate the virus instead. If that’s so, then the first organisms couldn’t very well have been viruses. Am I missing something?

No you are not missing anything.

Wikipedia describes a virus this way
“Virus particles (known as virions) consist of two or three parts: the genetic material made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry genetic information; a protein coat that protects these genes; and in some cases an envelope of lipids that surrounds the protein coat when they are outside a cell.”

Question
How is the protein manufactured? — In a cell

Since a cell is required to manufacture protein, how on earth can anyone postulate that virus could have appeared before cells.

All this speculation is nothing but just that.
There is no science behind all this.

The scientific merit of the Darwinian macro evolutionary account in all it’s forms, as the accumulating evidence shows is rather tenuous and unravelling rapidly.
There is fierce resistance but that can only last so long.

What about the Genesis account, which is the other main view?

Firstly it is important to recognise that the account is presented as a historical narrative as
Gen 2:4 clearly states.
“ This is the history of the heavens and Earth in the DAY of their being created. in the DAY that God made earth and heaven.”

The word day (Hebrew yowm) is used 15 times in the account and it’s meaning varies depending on the context.

It varies from the distinction between light and darkness (night and day, i.e. roughly about 12 hours) to and unspecified creative period, finally to all the creative periods together, as the quote above clearly demonstrates.

Now the creationist (in particular the young earth) view is that the days mentioned in the account represent 24 hour periods.
There is no internal evidence that this is so. In fact there is nothing in the account to warrant an understanding that these created days were literal 24 hour periods.

The 24 hour period for each creative day is clearly a dogma and not based on evidence.

However can any part of the account be analysed scientifically?
The first 8 verses relating to Days 1 and 2 simply cannot.

However the process attributed to day 3 is interesting.
Vrs 9 & 10 reads
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

Current scientific understanding does seem to support this statement.
The evidence below shows that current science agrees that the landmass of the earth was all in one place in the past.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 74,00.html

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

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/polar.html

There are some other points worthy of note but I will leave that to another post

Thanks Scottie,

Finally showing your true color and answering to the question, you take the christian god for the creator.
Would you provide evidence that the genesis account is the other main view. I seriously doubt that.

And how cute it is to see you cherry picking verse to shoehorn science in that view. So a few more questions:
– Why Genesis 2, and not Genesis 1? Both chapters contain a creation myth.
– But they are diffrent so I do you chose which is more true, considering that, as you handily provide evidence for (at least for Gen 2), the link with our scientific understanding of the creation of the earth is quite hmmm…. patchy, shall we say?
– Do you know your Geology? And do you read your links? Because Pangea was not the first mega continent, and it is probably impossible to say waht the first continent or group thereof looked like.

But at least we can agree on something, your post on the origin of virus is correct. Since they are parasites and cannot self replicate, virus cannot be at the origin of life.

Patrick

Glad to see you have come “alive”again.
You had gone very quiet recently, mind you it came as no surprise to me since your previous arguments fell apart.

Whatever happened to your last comment on this thread, remember this

about14351-132.html
🙂

But you are alive again so let me remind you that you still have not put to record which evolutionary account you subscribe to.
Why are you finding it so difficult to respond to such a simple question?
Well I am not going to hold my breath on any response on this.

However let me deal with your assertions one by one.

(btw. my favourite colour is green, I have a suspicion yours will be gravitating toward red. 🙂 )

First of all I was providing an answer to MY rhetorical question.

The genesis account refers to the God of the Hebrews, not to your so called “christian god”.
A good piece of advice is to know your subject before you start making strong assertions.

No no be in no serious doubt at all.
The creation view is most definitely the other main view of origins with the main creation account found in genesis.
Why? here is the reason.
Tell me do you attack with the same disparaging comments anyone espousing a different view from Darwin’s hypothesis but still positing a materialist stand?
Ofcourse you don’t.

There could of course be a couple of reasons for this
(a) you are not really sure what your own view is, which I suspect is the case since you are so reticent to put it to record. But also
(b) it doesn’t really matter to you what is proposed so long as that view does not interfere with your philosophy.
I have repeatedly made the point that these materialistic hypotheses are grounded in a philosophical view and not a scientific one. Prove me wrong.

Now just state quite clearly what your view is and the scientific basis for it and we can then examine the veracity of it.
Don’t keep catcalling from the sidelines. It demeans you.

Because there is only one creation account in genesis.
The creation account of chapter one ends in chapter 2:4.

Now before you go ahead and display any more lack of understanding on this subject I would advise you to get at least a smattering of knowledge of this matter.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here apart from the obvious sarcasm (which of course I am getting used to 🙂 ) but let me try to educate you a little.

The original genesis account was an edited version from pre existing histories that were inscribed probably on clay tablets.

The chapter headings and verses we see in bibles today are the work of translators of the King James Version of 1611. They are not the originals.
(there is a little bit more but I am not going to bore you with the details)

The genesis account is an edited version of 12 histories, each history concluding with the chapter and verses as follows.
Chapter 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:4, 37:2 and the last 50:26.

Note please these are historical accounts. I am not cherry picking anything, but merely examining anything from the account that could be in accordance with known science.

So please read what I am actually writing not what you may wish it to be.

Yes I do know my geology, and yes again and I do read the links I provide.
I suggest you read the USGS link properly.

First, you will not find that I used the word Pangea anywhere in my post.
Secondly the name Pangea relates to the “Continental drift theory” not plate tectonics.

Now Patrick you are showing signs of desperation here.

Neither I nor the genesis account (1:1 to 2:4) mention any geographical names.
A feature of the account is the fact that no geographical names are mentioned.
Even the sun and moon are referred to as the greater and lesser lights.
This suggests that the account was initially set down before any geographical names were invented.
Geographical names first appear in Chapter 2:8.

Also the account and I make no mention of what the land mass looked like, simply that it was all in one place, just as the modern day view is, that is all.

Are you trying to introduce a red herring in an attempt to camouflage some interesting information?

Now there are a few more interesting little nuggets but I had better wait until you cool down a bit before I enrage you again.

canolan

I forgot to respond to your last comment regarding your agreement with me.

Well actually I am not exactly in agreement with you here.

The virus could not predate the cell because it is essentially a protein shell housing some bits of nucleic acid (either DNA or RNA, depending on the virus) but not because it is a parasite which of course it is.

Protein could only come from a pre existing cell process.
The cell had to have predated the protein because it contains the processes that make protein.
So if we are to have common ground, and it’s nice to have some, I would like to be clear what that ground actually is.

This is an important fact as I hope will become clear.

A specially commissioned piece of research by NASA is available online by the National Academies Press entitled
The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11919

Here are some extracts.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11919&page=59

Page 60

my emphasis

There is a lot of good and honest science being put forward here.
What is it telling us?

Firstly — There is no “plausible” route to complex biomolecules.

Secondly — An external source of free energy is needed to form these compounds.
In other words some outside agency is required.

Thirdly — Clearly in water, either thermodynamically or chemically, biomolecules whether they are nucleotides or oligonucleotides or amino acids chains, cannot form spontaneously.

Yet Darwin and many others, like Stanley Miller and Harold Urey and many others have all posited and indeed continue to try to show that life could have spontaneously originated in water.
All this in spite of science being against them.

When I have said that these hypotheses have no bases in science, even NASA agrees with me.

The cell had to predate the protein, there is no way around this in science.
Philosophically, one may wish to hypothesize chemical processes that lead up to the formation of a cell, but scientifically they are implausible.

As NASA research has confirmed, an outside agency is required.

Too much spammers, not enough mods, will come back to you later….

Origin of Life.
Since no one is prepared to reveal what is their understanding of the processes that cause speciation other than simply state that, “evolution is a fact”,
I will try and describe my understanding of what the consensus opinion appears to be.

Firstly
How can Life be defined?

Here is a definition

Life is a system of chemicals that possess functional information (i.e.knowledge) in their molecules and a mechanism to implement that knowledge in such a way that the system can survive and replicate itself.

My understanding of the Molecular theory of evolution

Sections of DNA store information needed to make proteins. This is functional information (knowledge) and this is what constitutes a gene.
This knowledge is passed from generation to generation by a process of replication.
Chance or random errors during replication or other causes, create the potential to make new genes.
These mutations may create new information or alter existing information.
In either case nature preserves the beneficial mutations ( i.e. the knowledge to modify or make new proteins) by the process of natural selection, while the other mutations survive only by chance.
Over millions of years changes in existing genes result in new genes and that is the way animals adapt and evolve.

The problem with this framework is that if an existing gene evolves into a new gene with a new function then the old function will be lost.
Natural selection however will not allow that to happen, for obvious reasons.

So it was hypothesised that existing genes do not evolve into new genes unless the first gene is duplicated.
This duplicate copy is now free to evolve while the first maintains its function.
This theory has since been refined by further suggesting that pieces of genes may be duplicated and then rearranged to create new genes with new functions.

This is the theory that essentially explains the origin of many genes.

Remember all these mutations are chance (random)mutations that can only be filtered by natural selection if they have function, (i.e. they produce protein.)

Natural selection cannot act on any stretch of DNA unless it has a function that has produced a protein

Also remember that the cell is presumed to be in existence for this hypothesis to even get started.

Also this process is blind and has no foresight.

So the origin of the cell is unanswered and as we are now discovering there are no natural plausible pathways to the production of complex biochemical molecules.

What does that leave us with?

I like that last post.
At least it makes clear what we can agree and disagree on.
Basically you got the gist of how genes do evolve, change multiply. I just would like to add that gene duplictaion is not the only way to create new genes. So genes can be fully acquired from another organism (but it need to have evolved there) by horizontal gene transfer, and some genes that become useless because e.g. the environment changed are not the subject of selective pressure and can evolve in interesting new ways.
Plus there are genes that affect the regulation, the expression or even the folding of the protein. All that can drastically affect survival in certain conditions.
But I digress, you seem to accept that all that is convincingly proved and that it can happen. Am I right?

So your biggest problem is not how can the information multiply and change over time, it is only it can appear in the first place. Your problem is not with evolutionper se, but with the creation of life.
In which case Genesis 1 (I checked, it is in the first chapter, and you were right there is only one version of the creation of life on the earth, the 2 different stories in genesis 1 and 2 are about the creation of man), is not massively helpful either because it just tell us that it is so because of the word of god. Hmmmm…
The science of the creation of life is much more complicated than that of the following evolution for a simple reason. Whatever the first self replicating organisms, or more likely molecules (Science’s best bet is currently self replicating RNAs with catalytic activity, as those things can be observed), they did not leave traces to be analyzed, so it is as much a game of conjectures based on the current observed outcome and what we know about the primitive atmosphere’s (and there is guesswork there) composition and conditions. A few hypothesis have been offered, but since the conditions are hard to replicate (who has a set of empty planets at the right position and a few billion years to observe the outcome? And even more importantly the funding to run the experiment? :D) it will probably stay at least very informed guesses at best.
But they are based on observation and fact. The problem with assuming a creator are multiple and honestly strong enough to make the hypothesis quite implausible. I will refer you to the very nicely written open letter of R. Dawkins to the Gov. Perry. because he writes so much better than I do:

In my word: If one assume that information cannot arise spontaneously, which is what you do, then we have to assume that an original agent created the self replicating information. But that leave us with the problem of the origin of this first agent. It is just like panspermia, life may not have originated on earth (makes the game of informed guesses about the condition for the origin of life even more complicated), but the process for its creation somewhere else must have followed the same general rules. It is just moving the problem without providing any new information. So pray tell me, where does the original agent come from?
This is not science, this is logic. In science when you are making an argument you have to demonstrate that it holds water. You can spend hours on the rest if your foundation is leaky, however beautifully crafted and built is the rest of the edifice, it will crash down. So will you finally answer my simple question? As long as you cannot even provide any clue, speculation or whatever beginning of information about that, all the rest is just wind. If you keep posting your long winded diatribes and ignoring that little fact, I will have to assume that there is no point in having a discussion with you. So, once again and very clearly:
Where does the original agent come from?

Thanks for your post

I have got to go out this evening so will respond first thing tomorrow morning.

thanks

May I deal with your response one at a time, as all you that have written is definitely worthy of a response.

Well no, not quite.

If you will recall I have made repeated attempts to get someone to posit their understanding of what “evolution” actually is.
That ended in failure so I posited my understanding of what is generally understood and of course centred that understanding specifically around molecular evolution.

The principle behind the idea of gene duplication is to account for how a new function can arise without the loss of the old function, which natural selection (the central concept of Darwinian theory) would prevent.
Natural selection can only select from an existing function. It does not create new functions.
In other words Natural Selection can account for the demise of a species not the arrival of a species.

Therefore another “gene(s)” however arrived at would be needed and free to evolve.

The central question though is whether these theories or hypotheses can account for the arrival of new species (i.e. new body plans.)

So lets examine what the science is behind these hypotheses.

Gene duplication, does it occur?
Yes it does
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 3/abstract

Spontaneous duplication of the mammalian genome occurs in approximately 1% of fertilizations. Although one or more whole genome duplications are believed to have influenced vertebrate evolution, polyploidy of contemporary mammals is generally incompatible with normal development and function of all but a few tissues.
(My emphasis)

There is of course a lot more information that highly questions that gene duplication can account for speciation and if required I will provide the evidence.

HGT is posited as another method by which natural selection would be allowed to operate.
Does it occur.
Well yes again, in bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes.
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/1/1

And again I can provide a lot more information as evidence, but at best these ideas are definitely questionable when it comes to explaining origin of speciation.

This is why there are so many ideas that try to explain speciation with some directly contradicting Darwinism, Evo Devo and Symbiotic theory are but two of them.

Ii is not me that has a problem. It is the many scientists (not science) trying to explain these matters that have the problem.

Now I will end this post here to allow a response to this particular part and will respond to your other points shortly.

Patrick
Ok lets continue, this is a long one but you have raised quite a few points

It’s nice to see you have at least done some homework and agree with me on the number of creation accounts.
However please read the account more carefully.
1) The second is not about the creation of man, it is about the start of his history.
The creation of man (male and female) appears in the first history. Chap 1:27
You do yourself no justice when you make such careless errors in the simple matter of reading accurately.
2) Where does the account state it is the word of God ?
Your bias is blinding you to what is actually being stated.

This account claims to be a history set down by ancients. The only question that can be attributed to it is whether it is accurate. That’s all.

Really?
Leslie Orgel’s posthumous essay on this subject is worthy of note.
Remember he was one of the originators of the RNA world hypothesis.

Now please read his paper of 2007 and note his conclusion of his own hypothesis which you will find here.
It is entitled
The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info … io.0060018

And here is his concluding comment

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."

The above is not the conclusion of some lone scientist because there are many.

Remember I informed you of the conclusion NASA itself had reluctantly arrived at.
There are no natural plausible pathways to the production of complex biochemical molecules.

You see science knows that pigs don’t fly.

You would do well to research your belief system properly rather than running with “pigs will fly” hypotheses and then treat them as if they constitute science.

Now we already know that water prohibits any peptide sequences from forming.
They are both chemically and thermodynamically implausible.
This is a scientific fact.
So what would be a better place to get started?
Well, instead of water how about earth.

You know those ancients were indeed quite clever chaps..
Just look at what they wrote about the first forms of life.
“And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind……"

So far then, this account has been shown to be correct in that originally, all the land mass was in one place.

Those ancients clearly knew something that has taken modern science quite a little while to catch up with, me thinks
Certainly contrasts with Darwin’s musings of “quiet little pond” somewhere. 🙂

Now we note that they even knew where life got started and you appear to be still struggling to catch up.

OK lets take a third
There is a biologic logic about the first forms of life being vegetation.
After all they manufacture their own food in order to survive.

The account then goes on to state that life then got going in the seas and atmosphere and then the animals of the land.

Scientifically implausible or scientifically plausible?

Remember this is just an historical account. It’s not a scientific document.

OK lets take Dawkins little open letter to Rick Perry.
I don’t know much about this Perry person other than I think he considers himself suitable to run for the presidency of the US.
However I do know a little something about this Richard Dawkins fellow.

He is the eminent scientist who hypothesized the “selfish gene concept”
That turned out to be wrong. Strike 1.
He is still stuck in his “gradual evolution” mindset.
Again we have science turning against him. Strike 2
What about his Tree of Life mindset?
Now you ought to know all about this, what with HGT and all. Have a chat with Carl Woese.et al.
So that is also turning against him — Strike 3

Was it not Mayor Rudy Giuliani who came up with the 3 strikes and you are out policy.
Of course the scientific community are a little more tolerant 🙂

A little bit of advice, if you must quote him do it on his religion not on his science.

Now this is quite a “long winded” post as you keep reminding me so I had better end it here.
I will deal with your next point tomorrow.
Trust me I will answer your question 🙂

Patrick
Sorry for the delay.
As I understand it your argument is essentially this.
So long as the originator cannot be named or identified then that is evidence the originator doesn’t exist.
Therefore (according to your logic Gravity doesn’t exist, The Laws of motion do not exist and as we don’t know who invented the wheel so it doesn’t exist either etc etc.)

Now of course this is nonsense, as you well know, and we have covered this point before.

However I have noticed that you have changed your approach somewhat.

You previously wanted to know the name of the originator.(agent)
It has now changed to

Look I don’t need to pray about this.
Be that as it may, lets deal with your comment on information.
We know, because science has established it, that the metabolic pathways we observe in the cell do not exist in natural law.

Natural laws that the study of science rests on, are not observed in the functional information content we observe guiding cell processes. That I assume is clear enough to you, since you have not attempted to rebut any of the information I have provided.

Therefore that guiding information can only come from an outside agency as I keep stressing.
Now you may not have realised the fact that information is non material.
The chemical molecules are material but the information they contain, that directs them in ways that are not linear and in non random ways, is not material.

Why else does the cell enlist such elaborate editing and feedback looping that we observe. Also we are now observing the tremendous redundancy that exists ensuring constancy of functional output.

All our experience tells us that this king of information comes from a mind, one that is using “ an external source of free energy” as NASA puts it.

This is the only evidence we have and all that evidence is staring at us, inconveniently it appears to some or indeed many.

So why is it so difficult to grasp such a simple concept?

There can only be one reason.
Your philosophy prevents you from doing so.
Please reflect for a moment, on your own statement

Now apart from the fact that you aren’t keeping up with the latest understanding amongst scientists, you are reducing your view of science to a casino operation.

Scientists with certain philosophical needs may engage in betting, science however is not a casino.

This type of wishful speculation stems from a philosophical need.
It has nothing to do with science and deep down I suspect you know it.
( Freeman Dyson sums it up nicely in a conclusion comment to his own speculative scenario on origins.
“ The question is whether any of that makes sense. I think it does, but like all models, its going to be short-lived and soon replaced by something better.”)

One thing we are agreed upon though.
Logic is not science. There maybe logic in studying science but in itself it is not science.
Philosophy, parading as science however cleverly it may be dressed up, is also not science.

At least creationists, bizarre though some of their statements may be, wear their philosophy/religion on their sleeves.
You though, are trying to camouflage yours under the guise of science. That is not a very stable foundation.

Now there are invariably fundamentalist diehards who despite all the evidence to the contrary will continue to stick to an idea, no matter what.
I sincerely hope you are not one of those, but that has to be your decision.
In the meantime however I will continue to present information in the hope of course you don’t bar me from this forum. 🙂

Craig Venter and George Church recently had a discussion regarding the ribosome which is very revealing.

I will copy part of the transcript in my next post, as this has gone on long enough. 🙂

I have probably skip this one. Which natural laws are you talking about?

Now Scottie, my simple question is one of logic, not science, not naming not nothing, simple logic. I will detail it one more time for your understanding:
1- Complexity, such as observed in life, cannot arise spontaneously
2- Ergo matter needs guidance by a complex entity to organize it self in living beings
So what guides the matter? And how did it appear without guidance, as it would launch us in a recursive loop?

Nucleic-acid-peptide micro-molecular technology – a database of DNA through RNA intermediaries is implemented by the polypeptide interface. But this is an automated production system. A user who is? And this is an older subject – glyco-lipid membrane. Once upon a time, a few billion years ago, some engineers of a great civilization glyco-lipidoides created this nucleic acid-peptide technology and armed with it, settled by a million ships in all parts of the visible universe. But what do our evolutionists? And they are the origin and evolution of life on self-replicators – RNA! Wow! So you can keep your computer from the origin of a computer mouse! Yes, the computer system, of course at the last regular duplication mice formed a small detail, like user … 😯

JackBean » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:51 pm

The laws of Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics.

These natural laws are not left unguided in cell processes. They are guided by the functional information contained in the cell.
That information is not internally sourced but, as for example, NASA has concluded can only be from an outside source.

Patrick

Correct

Correct

As I have already stated in my last post.
It did not appear without guidance.
All our experience tells us that this kind of guiding information comes from a mind.
Is there any other logic we have experience to go on?
If so please inform.

Leopol
As I understand it, you have a view that life was planted here on earth by an extra-terrestrial lifeform.

Is that correct?

to Scottie
I think the concept "extra-terrestrial" for life is not correct. Life is life. It is the same painful geo-anthropo-centrism. Intelligent life, armed with a nucleic-polypeptide technology could in a few billion years to spread widely in the universe, and here we have one of the planetary population. It is strange that you do not think this is correct!
Another interesting question. The above is obvious, but the crowd of smart people at NASA and elsewhere raise the question only about panspermia microorganisms! Why not reasonable landings? It’s that – a taboo? I wonder who the customer? Ah yes, the theory of evolution as something is lost … And creationism, too, seemed suddenly melts away … Wow!

to Scottie

There is also the question of why intelligent life is usually unwise? But it is not difficult:

Collapse of civilizations – the regression of creative thinking

It is well known that in the living world all on demand and trains – is evolving and what does not on demand and no trains – regresses.

This refers to the organs and tissues of our organism to thinking skills, communication, food and much more, but also social institutions, and large industries. And more broadly – to the development of species and entire ecological systems. "Claim" in different cases is a demand, "social order", "selection pressure" and so on. If this law of nature to apply the theory to our ability to think creatively, the result a sudden a logical conclusion, which is the very our "starting point".
Sense reasoning is as follows:
Creative intelligence to develop a species until it is demanded. With it, created an elaborate set of global technology standards and stereotypes in all spheres of public life. But then, after reaching a "global harmony" and a "welfare society" creative intelligence is no longer needed, subject to negative selection pressure and begins to regress.
30-50 thousand years happy hypothetical "world empire" (or "Democracy") becomes a world of "ants" in the minds narrowly stereotypical type of mind, where a return to the creative phase is almost impossible.
A thousand years later, 200-300 changes in genetically fixed and this species generally losing the creative intelligence, and the "purposeful activity" in this society is no different from the cooperative activity of the same social insects. This is not the mind, and his remains – a relic. Relic Paleo-civilization reasonable.
Armed with such a logical premise, it is possible to take a fresh look at our world as something that it has featured such "relics of the Mind," left over from long ago emerged and faded manifestation of "creative intelligence."
This is the same social insects, provided such relics of two integers: public-Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants), which became public, according to various sources, from some point between 50 and 100 million years ago (an ancestor – a giant wasp) and

– Termites, which have left their public relic from a certain point in time from 120 to 200 million years ago (an ancestor – a giant cockroach).

Can claim to be a "relic of reasonableness" and

– Multicellularity our organisms (there was about a half billion years ago, the creator – Vendian biont large aerobic unicellular ameboid, who built a very complex civilized society – a multicellular organism Myxomycetes).
Some terrestrial civilization can not leave behind a "relic" – coelenterates, sponges (archeocyathids), marine polychaete (trilobites), rakoskorpions, siphonophores, salps, cephalopods, and pikaias.

Well, the question of how to achieve the welfare, thus, is a question of how to kill a civilization. 😥

http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=32
( http://translate.google.com/translate?s … ge_id%3D32 )

Can you tell, how exactly the metabolic processes are against the natural laws? Because I’m pretty sure they are not.

here is some nice reading 🙂
http://www.naontiotami.com/2011/08/does … d-rebuilt/

Oh, thank you, this is interesting! But our situation is better! Our version of the ID do not want creationism. 😀

Jackbean

Sorry for delay in responding. I have been away for a few days.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying.
Let me try and clarify.

The molecules involved in metabolic processes, without a guiding outside source of energy will follow the natural laws and disintegrate down to their elemental natural states.

I have approached this subject before but I feel it is now important to revisit it again.

Lets take the question as to what happens at death?
In other words what is the difference between, say, a living dog and a dead one?

At the moment of death, all the processes we have studied in biology cease and the dog begins to disintegrate.
However that disintegrating corpse is still subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry as the live dog was, so what was keeping the live dog living?

At the moment of death all the biochemical molecules in body are the same as when it was alive. The same functional information in the molecules remains, yet function has ceased.

Now ask yourself what kind of logic are we appealing to which suggests, that by assembling all the molecules together (assuming we are able to of course) into the form of a dog, we will create a dog that lives, or indeed any form of living organism.

Doesn’t all our experience, data and intuitive understanding tell us that life is something apart from mere chemical molecules?

Life is what keeps the chemical molecules that make up our bodies from following the natural laws that send these molecules back to their constituent parts. When life is removed these molecules begin reverting back to what they were originally.

I hope that explains my point more clearly.

btw I am not arguing for the ID community. There are some fundamental difficulties I have with their line of argumentation.
I will be happy to explain in more detail if called upon.

Leopol

Sorry but I am having great difficulty in understanding your posts.
It maybe a language problem.

Hi, Chilipanda,

What about a theory that suggests there were no origins of life in this natural Universe because it connects Cosmological Evolution to Biological Evolution? This theory is the result of comparative anatomy between the first cell system and the last non-living system, which built a model of LUCA (the last Universal Common Ancestor), a kind of building blocks of astronomic systems, the lost link between the state the world about 4 billion years ago and the first nucleotide at Earth. The theory suggests the DNA as a universal template, called The Matrix/DNA. So, it is not panspermia, only suggesting that there was a hidden variable ( the matrix ) at the primordial soup.

Ok, I am the author of this theory which has cost to me about 30 years of hard work. As an agnostic I don’t believe in this theory but the amount of evidences and right predictions are becoming astonishing and I am testing the models. I need ideas for testing/discussing and your topic – as I am following it – is very interesting and helpful. I should be grateful if you permit to participate in this debate. At least, I can suggest faults and gaps on the existents theories that nobody else has thought about. I can do it? Cheers…

Hi, Believer,

There is a set of natural laws and mechanisms. If you know them and follow biological evolution in the reverse way towards biological systems origins, you will be no “left to speculations”.

Feel free for asking or pointing out when you think there are gaps.

But, then, you will arrive at the state of the world before life’s origins, the world that created life. If you apply the same set of laws for calculating that state of the world you will get a surprising cosmological model, where Astros exists under life’s cycles and performing perfect closed systems. The blueprint of this model is a building block, identical to a nucleotide, the fundamental unit of information in the DNA. So, there was no origin of life at Earth, because Earth, itself, belongs to a system that is half-living.

So, the right calculations using only natural laws and mechanisms you discovered that there is a link between biological evolution and the past cosmological evolution: the DNA template.

Continuing going deep to the past, with those laws, you will arrive to the primordial nebula of atoms systems. But, then, you will have a more complex model of atoms: they have the principles of life’s properties.
Go deepest, before the atom nebulae, and you will meet with empty vortexes. But, you will see that those vortexes have the laws, the mechanisms and all life’s properties.

Now you are going to before the Big Bang, leaving this Universe and believing that those vortexes are bits-information, like genes, coming from a natural system, ex-machine. That could be your God. To me, it means merely more research work to do…

As promised in a previous post, a transcript of an interesting conversation

http://www.edge.org/documents/life/Life.pdf

You will find more information on the scientists including video clips from this event.
http://www.edge.org/documents/life/life_index.html
The video clip of Robert Shapiro is quite interesting.

I would recommend spending some time reading and viewing this.

Here is part of the transcript of the Event.
Discussion between Venter, Church and Shapiro.

Page 76

Notice how both Church and Venter agree that the ribosome has no precursor, in fact Church recommends that the ribosome is the candidate for the ID community to concentrate on as an example of irreducible complexity.

So the evidence is quite clear to these scientists, but note Shapiro’s interjection

Here you have an obvious example of a renowned scientist whose thinking is guided by his philosophical view rather than by evidence.

scottie
I decided to speak out on three topic at Dawkins. But controversy still slightly opened only on one: http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/6 … ure?page=1 .
The other two – Brake.
( – http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/5 … FrIJIB6U8g
– http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/6 … ife?page=4 )
Is there a bad translation and turned out? I tried so hard! 😯

Leopol

There clearly is a problem in translating from Russian and it does make understanding your posts a little difficult. However you must be commended for trying.

I have spent some time in trying to understand your position, so let me try and respond to your view.

As I am beginning to understand it, you use the expression

In other words it seems to me that you appear believe that a technology has been developed in the past whereby peptide chains could be produced, thereby providing the ability to make cellular life.
This technology has been transferred to the earth and that accounts for our present condition.

I think you agree that this view is highly speculative, but more than that I believe you are making the same basic mistake that evolutionary theory an indeed ID theory make, that is, the appearance of life has been through a bottom up process.

In other words you start with basic building blocks ( pre-biotic and then biotic) and then build up the whole organism, this essentially summarises the evolutionary view.
The ID view ( as I understand it) has a similar perspective in that the designer has built up the organism in a Lego-like assembly way.

However this does not reflect what we observe in reality.
Let me try and explain with an example.

We tend to see the cytoskeleton portrayed as a fixed structure,
But that is simply incorrect

Cell Mechanics and the Cytoskeleton – Nature 463 Jan 28 2010 485-492)

The cell is typically about 80% water and when examined we note that the main activity is a pattern of flows. What we see are fixed structures that actually are part of these flows.

Craig Holdrege in his book “ The dynamic Heart and Circulation” describes the development of the heart this way
http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic7/heart.htm

We have been educated to see the living organism as an assembly of individual parts,for example like a watch that is put together in a certain way.

However in a living organism, (as one writer puts it)

Both the evolutionary and ID views have this common foundation. They have a bottom up perspective of living organisms, when in fact the reverse is the case.
It is the whole that determines the parts. This whole is determined from the moment the two gamete cells join to form the Zygote.

It is this wholeness that scientists have not been able to come to terms with, and the result has been a fruitless search for some understanding as to how these parts could have come together to form the whole we see and indeed are.

Chemical molecules do not come together to form life.
Even cutting edge biologists such a Craig Venter and George Church are beginning to recognise this fact.
(The little transcript of their conversation at the Edge event that I had in my last post reveals this)
They are only one step removed from recognising that life uses chemical molecules to persist. When life ends these molecules revert back to their constituent parts.

We know of no instance where life has come from any source other than another life.
To try and show that it can and indeed has is no different than looking for fairies at the bottom of some garden.

No, Venter says, that the precursor is from RNA world, but since we don’t have no such ribosomes nowadays (w/o proteins), we cannot reduce the number of proteins to less than 53.

Ahh, you mean this…
The molecules are still the same, they are just not regulated. Even the cells do not die immediately after death, but they survive a little, although they are not synchronized anymore and of course, the shortage of supply causes their death later. This was discussed in another topic recently.

Please, go on.

scottie
Thank you! 😀
The hypothesis is that the cell membrane – this is a direct descendant of the brilliant engineers who have several billion years ago created "Nucleic-acid-peptide micro-molecular technology". That’s membrane and is the carrier of "consciousness" – what we call ‘I’. Everything else – equipment.
You can say so, that in every cell membrane formed a kind of cellular "self", which is the "active model of the world in an electromagnetic field of the membrane."

I must add that this hypothesis is very useful in molecular biology, because it creates a theoretical model of cell entity which manages all the cellular technologies. A lot gets new meaning clear! At least, now we need to look for those instructions that guided this subject!

Jackbean

Thanks for your response.
May I deal with your points in turn for fear my post will get too long, something for which in the past I plead guilty. 🙂

Firstly please note what he previously said about the ribosome

Also what Venter actually then said was this

The RNA world is a speculative scenario that many are clinging to in order to have some hope of progress. However even Venter knows that is a speculative hope. He probably was not aware at that time of the NASA report (I have referred to it previously) which stated quite clearly that there are no plausible hypothesis for routes to complex biochemical molecules, either chemically or thermodynamically.

So probably not even being aware of the NASA conclusion at that time he remained in the speculative world of RNA

Now if you wish to remain there as well, then that’s OK it’s your choice, but please, remember that science is not backing you up.

Now on the question of organism death you responded

You are right we have discussed this before, and forgive me when I state that I feel you may not have quite grasped the point I was making.

At the moment just prior to death all the biochemical molecules in the dog are still functioning and intact.
At the very moment of death they are still there, however as you rightly point out the regulatory mechanisms cease and the molecules begin to disintegrate.

In other words, the natural laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics continue operating but without the guiding regulation that has now been removed, and the result is degeneration, down to their constituent parts.

Therefore the natural course that natural laws take, breakdown biochemical molecules.
Since that is the case how can those same laws naturally guide the building of cellular life let alone the whole organisms
They have to be guided down the different regulated pathways if they are to succeed.
So whatever life is, it is certainly not a constituent part of physics or chemistry.

That is why a naturalist view of the origin of life is scientifically untenable.

That is also why NASA has been forced to draw the conclusion it has.

If any organisation needed a natural explanation to life’s origin it is they.Just think of all the funding they would receive if they could. There is every incentive for them to prove that they have conquered the problem of Abiogenesis, and if they were able to then I will let you speculate on the news headlines!!

One further point to note.
Nobody has been able to describe what life actually is.
There are many who have tried to define it in one way or another, but there is no consensus even on this basic point.

One rather cute tribal description is :-
“Anything that is capable of Darwinian evolution”. 🙂

I will deal with the ID situation very shortly in the next post.

Here are problems I have with Intelligent Design theorists.
This is what they have to say.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

There appears to be a contradiction in the above statement.

A fundamental doctrine of Darwinism is the principle of common decent/ancestry, and yet some adherents of ID ( Michael Behe for example) endorses this principle of common ancestry.

If there is common ancestry then there has to be a mechanism that engenders this process. I have not seen that explained anywhere. Darwin explained his mechanism.

Also, by way of an example, why would a designer tie a human being to an ape through common ancestry.?
Why not make each separately?

It seems to me that some of the ID community are facing both ways. I have tried to find an explanation as to how this is not a contradiction but have been unable to as yet. Maybe some one will be able to enlighten me.

However there is a more fundamental problem in which ID is explained.
Perhaps I could illustrate it this way.

If I am to design a house, I don’t start with designing certain aspects of it say, the kitchen sink, then the bathroom mirror or bedrooms etc and then try and fit them all together to provide an overall framework.
In other words I don’t start from the bottom and work upwards.
This is how evolutionary theory is explained. (i.e. a bottom up approach)

Design however implies purpose. Therefore it is a top down action.
So, to try and explain design as ID proponents do in finding structures within an organism that are, for example irreducibly complex and then stating that this is evidence of Intelligent design is not sufficient.
A living organism is more than the sum of all it parts.

Also they appear to present a mechanistic view of organisms, a sort of sum total of biological machines.
The very icon of the ID community is presented as an outboard motor. (the bacterial flagellum).

When something is designed, there is always a purpose to the design.
The various parts that go into that design always grow out of that purpose.

Now I don’t see the ID community addressing this anywhere in their literature. In fact they appear to concentrate on simply refuting neo Darwinism.

Actually there is nothing wrong in presenting evidence that corrects a wrong idea.
I myself can be successfully accused of that.
Certainly the work they do is very informative and I have learned a lot from them as indeed I have from the evolutionary community.

However there is no apparent attempt to replace that idea (neo Darwinism) with another that demonstrates purpose.

They are shying away from the obvious implications of what design means.

Continuing on with the problem ID has not addressed.

As I stated in my last post.

Design is always the product of a purpose the Designer has in mind.
If, as do the ID community, argue for Intelligent design, then they must reveal their understanding of the purpose of the design.

As I see matters this is very important because they are against a theory that posits randomness without purpose and they are arguing the exact opposite.

Now the evolutionists cite as their frame of reference Darwin’s Origin of Species (albeit with modifications, but with the central tenet intact).
That is their narrative.

Why can’t (or wont) the ID adherents narrate their own frame of reference?

They need to bite the bullet on this issue.

If they believe in the veracity of the scientific method, as indeed I do, then they should simply follow that method. Here is a good description of the scientific method.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la … ndixe.html

As far as I am aware this forum has presented a few hypothesis
(1) There is of course the Darwinian narrative (with all it’s epicycles)
(2) Then there is the Creation narrative (with all it’s misunderstandings and bias read into the genesis account)
(3) Then there is Leopol’s Nucleic-acid-peptide molecular technology.
(4) Then there is also the genesis historical account itself (without any bias attachment)
(5) Finally there is Intelligent Design, without a purposeful narrative.

My question is simple.
Is there another narrative and if not,
Which of these accounts is most consistent with the scientific method?

Scottie,

I can’t understand how works the thoughts of all of you that search the answers for life’s existence. If you could explain to me, should be very grateful.

Let’s go start with this:

There are enough evidences pointing to a common ancestral. The debate now between evolutionists and iD is:
– Is evolution an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species; or
– Evolution is a process under design and purpose?

Ok. How my thoughts have worked? I am at the middle of evolution process. I am inside the process. So, remembering the Gödel’s theorem, it is impossible to whom is inside a system, to know the thru about that system. I never will know the thru about evolution. No way. First of all, the evolution we are watching in the whole Universe, can be merely phases of a universal process of reproduction. Then, nobody can say scientifically that there is evolution.
But…

There is a natural process of evolution that is outside of me, I am bigger than it, and I can watch it, fully. And this sample of evolution obeys the evidences for evolution: it is triggered by a common ancestral.
What is it?
The origins and development of a human body. Everything is equal to Darwinian mechanism of evolution: natural selection, variation, inheritance, common ancestral.
The common ancestral is a genome. The body in formation takes several different shapes (see Haeckel’s recapitulation Theory). The environment plus the forces inside the fetus sets the selection and fix shapes in the evolutionary tree.
The genome is the common ancestry. But it came from the parents; they designed the purpose of that evolution towards a final determined forma: the human shape. This evolution process I am seeing has no purpose of a final design in the image of the common ancestor, but an image beyond it.

At this point you are saying: “Wait! You can’t make this comparison. Everything is different…”
And I will ask: “I said that the final meaning is the same, since that the basic postulates are the same. What is different?”
Maybe you will not answer this question or at least will say: Louis this is such an absurd that I will not waste my time with it.
And I will comment: “My friend, the modern human kind are living in a such artificial world, with the brain hard-wired by too many scientific fantasies, that it cannot think anymore as a natural being. Why not apply Ockham’s Razor over this question? If we have a real and natural fact under ours eyes, why appellate to imaginary constructions?

I am not saying that my method suggests the common ancestor was made by an intelligent designer, neither that there is a God. My method suggests that the common ancestor was not a microscope initial life form. It was the astronomic system surrounding us, but, then, I have a theoretical cosmological model that fits as the common ancestor, different form the theoretical cosmological model that you have seen.

Why not trying to think out of the box, pointing out what is different between these two processes of evolution?

TheMatrixDNA

Thanks for your response.
I am a bit tied up at the moment but will respond as best as I can tomorrow.

I will make one observation on your comment below.

The problem with your statement is that the ID proponents argue that common ancestry is also evidence of a common designer.
In other words the evidence that can be argued to suggest common ancestry also could support the common designer view.

I however do not share the view that some ID proponents take on this matter for one simple reason. The evidence from science does not support it.

I will summarise the evidence more fully tomorrow.

Thanks.

I adhere to the hypothesis that the engineering design occurred during the rare periods when the developed technological civilizations. This has happened very rarely. But for a very long interim periods ran the Darwin’s Natural Selection, as well as Dawkins’s His Majesty the Selfish Gene! At the same time created by the engineering design technologies were degenerative effects of natural selection. As a result of species to varying degrees, lose universalism, but due to hypertrophy of various technological relics specialize in different biological niches. It is Macro-devolution!

Now – the arguments. Nucleic-acid-peptide molecular technology we have already considered. And now – eyes.

With all the great variety of eye, inducers that control tab in the ontogeny of the eye are the same for all studied taxa, including vertebrates and jellyfish. Moreover, the settlement and the time of appearance of the first sample of the inductor – Vendian.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/07/14/1008389107

These eyes have a lens with a jellyfish: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2825319/

And also Turbellaria: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ресничные_черви

In polychaetes: http://www.liveinternet.ru/showjournal. … id=1022068

Etc.

Further. Human embryo at an early stage has gills, caudal fin … But he can not use them. This is because genetic technology support was lost when the larva was in the placenta. Or in the egg. Macro-devolution is irreversible! But now, the frogs have a larva with gills and tail fin! They are versatile us. A Turbellaria, some species of which contemporaries and now have eyes with lenses, the brain is orthogonal to type, the organ of equilibrium, etc., they are active predators! – Some Turbellaria are also free-living Müller’s larva! Hence, their ancestors – in Vendian! They still have more versatile! Give Turbellaria such a trifle as a skeleton – and it is no easier to us.

So, Turbellaria in Vendian – a super-versatile creature. And before Turbellaria? Myxomycetes! According to the logic – even more versatile! ..

This is a message in Russian: http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=5440

TheMatrixDNA

There is a backdrop revealed by science that should not be ignored.
It is therefore important to nail down a few of these scientific facts that relate to biology.
This helps recognise any philosophical statements that may be presented as fact.

Fact 1
The smallest living organism (species) is a single cell bacteria or archaea. Nothing smaller than this cell is considered to be living. The constituent parts of the cell if removed from it are inert. (DNA, RNA, Proteins etc are all inert when outside the cell.)
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/insid … eface.html

So what does this mean?
Simply that any discussion on the origin of species is by definition a discussion about the origin of life itself.

Fact 2
There are no plausible biochemical pathways to the origin of complex biochemical molecules.
I have already provided sufficient scientific references to this effect.
See my post of by scottie » Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:31 pm
about14351-180.html

Any hypothesis has to account for this fact.

Fact 3 on the Origin of the Genetic Code
There is no natural explanation for the origin of the code, even in principle.
Koonin et al concludes this way.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iub.146/full
Again unless any hypothesis deals with this fundamental question, all else is simply philosophy.

Fact 4
Life is only known to come from another life. This fact has been known and indeed proved since Darwin’s day

Fact 5
Evolution is a historical narrative based on the Darwinian principle

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) has an online book entitled
Molecular Cell Biology. 4th edition.
Lodish H, Berk A, Zipursky SL, et al. 2000

It is an excellent reference point in understanding cell biology functions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21568/

This is how it describes the subject of evolution.

Ernst Mayr (the one of the founding fathers of the Modern Synthesis) in his 1999 Crafoord pride lecture confirms his view that this is so.

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-on … luence.htm
So with these facts in mind how do the different views previously listed stand the test of the scientific method?

Since we are in the area of an historical narrative, the acid test for any hypothesis must be whether science supports the parts of the narrative that can be tested scientifically.

My question to you and others would be a simple one.
Does your idea have the backing of science?
If not it is simply a philosophical view.

That is not a problem as there are many philosophies around. It only becomes a problem when it is presented as a scientific fact.

So which narrative is the most scientifically plausible?

I posit that the Genesis narrative (without the philosophical/religious bells and whistles that creationists attach to it) is the most scientifically plausible one.
I have already put out some evidence but there is more.

"The smallest living organism (species) is a single cell bacteria or archaea. Nothing smaller than this cell is considered to be living. The constituent parts of the cell if removed from it are inert. (DNA, RNA, Proteins etc are all inert when outside the cell.)
http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/insid … eface.html"
– This is a clear evidence that about three billion years ago, life came to Earth from elsewhere in the universe. And degraded by the laws of Devolution! So there were bacteria. And about one billion years ago, has brought back here the settlers, but the degradation was delayed … It is still going on! 😀

Leopol

Your idea could be the basis of a good Sci-fi movie.

Get in touch with James Cameron.
http://www.jamescameron.net/

🙂

Yes, exactly! The best way to describe the world of the past – sci-fi. I’m trying. Here: http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=5308
I’ve got different universal creatures from the Cambrian, Vendian and early Proterozoic in turn show a master class of his universalism. 😕

Start the story here: http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=4912, but a translation of Google, it’s so awful! Sorry …

THE MATRIX/DNA
Scottie
You said:
“The problem with your statement is that the ID proponents argue that common ancestry is also evidence of a common designer. .. I however do not share the view that some ID proponents take on this matter for one simple reason. The evidence from science does not support it.”

And before it you said: “ I’m writing a paper on the origin of life, and I need some suggestions about which theories to write about.”

Ok. I think you will make a critical analyze of theories. Then, you need pay attemption about the meanings of nouns and words in each theory. The word “design” is full of problems.
You said: “Design is always the product of a purpose the Designer has in mind.”

And Wikipedia says: “ No generally-accepted definition of “design” exists, and the term has different connotations in different fields…
More formally, design has been defined as follows.
(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;…”

Now I ask you:
– “Why “genome” is not a designer? Considering the definition above?

I think that genome fill up every requirement cited in Wikipedia for being a designer. Wikipedia does not say that designer has something in mind , like you said, so, designer could be not something with mind. If you think that genome does not fill one requirement above, tell me.
But, why I am talking about genome?

The scientific evidences point out that all living things are made through genome. Is it wrong? The theory of abiogenesis says that the “first living being was made by the unanimated world”
So ,we have a contradiction between scientific evidences and abiogenesis theory. Is it wrong?
You said that is writing a paper about theories of origins of life. You don’t said “only known theories and theories that makes sense for you”
Then, there is Matrix/DNA Theory, unknown, that yet does not make sense because it is too much complex and different.

But , for instance, Matrix/DNA has no contradiction with scientific evidences. The problem of genome and the first living being is solved: the first cell system was made in a long process of million or billion years from the decay of a half-mechanical/half biological system that transmitted a half-mechanical/half biological genome, which shape ,constitution and functioning is suggested through a model.

The non agreement between ID and Matrix/DNA is not about the word “design”, but about the word “intelligent”. The designer and design in Matrix/DNA were not intelligent.

scottie

Thanks by the link. But… don’t forget that the constituents party of any organism or non-living system are inert alone. The liver, the heart, the planet Earth out of solar system… etc. Separating the parts of any system is not the same of reducing the evolutionary history, or the origin, of a system. We have a problem here.

Sorry, I can’t understand your statement. The problem is again about the meaning of words. What is “origins”?

Word English Dictionary: Origin – 1 – – A primary source; derivation 2 – the beginning of something; first stage or part( often plural ) ancestry or parentage; birth; extraction

Then, I think, species are products of transformation, every living specie came from other living specie. In abiogenesis theory, the first cell system – aka first living being – did not came from transformation of another living system. So, I don’t think that discussion about origin of species is the same about origin of life.

I think there is no “primary source” or “first stage “ in this Universe. I think that every evolutionist and atheist should fight this word “origins” because it commonly means that something happens coming from outside the normal natural flow of cause and effect. This word is responsible for people searching something supernatural for explaining the existence of life, the beginning of religions. But, it is the cause that some rationalists also are believing in the arisen of life by chance. The words origins and life are wrong concepts.

The Matrix/DNA theory has solved this problem:
It says that there was no origin of life, as the beginning of something. Every life’s properties can be find on the last most evolved system before the first cell system (as shown in the “theoretical cosmological model”. If the models are right , at Earth surface there was origins of biological system, not life. Here, living things are products of transformation also, like species. My conclusion: You are right saying that the existence of species is related to existence of life, but, then, the theory of abiogenesis is wrong.

Leopol

Congratulations. I also think “that “Devolution” is a good explanation for mystery of life.

Indeed, “life” appeared inside a system and was produced by this system that works like a watch, the Newtonian watch. But, the first living being did not work perfect like a watch, and our human body is far away from working perfect. So, only devolution explains the passage from our stellar system to the first cell system. In Matrix/DNA Theory I found a possible hypothesis for explaining this “devolutionary step”.

LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, was not a microscope half-living thing existing at earth surface; LUCA is the building block of astronomical systems. This is where life came from. LUCA, as shown in my models, is a perfect closed system, like the Newtonian watch. But it was attacked by entropy ( what you cal laws of degradation) and reproduced with mutations here, because here we have the liquid state of matter, then, organic chemistry. But, LUCA was a closed door to evolution and biological systems are opened door, then, macro-evolution came back again, going through a different pathway.

I think that we, both, are in the right way, with the idea of degradation. You are thinking out of the box, and this is good, you can find something new. Now, let’s go testing our theoretical models…

TheMatrixDNA

I was simply stating that ID proponents argue that way. You do not share that view.
You say that science supports your view, they say it supports their view also.

Fight it out among yourselves, it has nothing to do with me.

May I suggest you read what I have said and not attribute statements to me I have not made.
I am not writing any paper nor have I requested any suggestions.

I find the wikipedia defination of design quite adequate.
As to why the genome is not a designer— well because it is the product of design that is intended to accomplish certain goals.
If you wish to believe the genome designed itself, then go ahead and believe it.

I don’t know, why are you? 🙂

Once again may I remind you to attribute my statements to me, not those of someone else. May I suggest you check my postings more carefully so that you understand more clearly what I am actually writing and therefore not confuse me with anyone else.

Am I to understand that Matrix/DNA Theory is one that you have developed?

If it is then try and get it peer reviewed and published so that you may add credibility to your work.

Btw the quotes you have attributed to me are from by chilipanda » Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:35 pm
about14351.html

Well well!!, now you have got me doing your homework for you. 🙂

In the beginning …
So begins the account in Genesis.( I will return to this later)

There is also another “In the beginning..” narrative
So goes the account in EARTH SCIENCE The Story of O2 Richard A. Kerr June 2005

What does chemistry tell us?

We have rocks, made up of granite. Granite consists of different amounts of Quartz (SiO2) Feldspar of which there are three kinds (KAlSi2O2, CaAlSi2O2, and NaAl2Si2O2), and Mica (every Mica molecule contains 12 Oxygen atoms (O2).
Limestone and Marble contain copious amounts of oxygen atoms as well.
So there is plenty of oxygen atoms in rocks.

Water contains oxygen (H2O)

Now stellar evolution tells us that accretion was the process that formed the Galaxies Stars and planets. The process consists of the collision of microscopic dust (the elements) and then sticking together. Let’s assume this is correct.

So the hypothesis is that all these, rich in Oxygen compounds, formed the rocks and water but without a remainder O2 for the atmosphere.
What is the physics or chemistry that can confirm this? There is none.
So why is it so emphatically stated that the early earth had no oxygen?
Is there a reason?
Why yes but it’s not a scientific one.

Oxygen cannot be in the atmosphere because if it were amino acids for instance could not form. Therefore no peptide chains. If there were none of these molecules then we don’t have proteins, therefore no robosomes etc etc.
In other words life could not begin. (the other assumption of course, is that life is simply a coming together of biological molecules in a certain way.)

So an atmosphere devoid of oxygen has to be a given, in order for life to get
started.

There is no science behind this concept of no initial oxygen in the atmosphere, just speculation because of a philosophy. May I repeat.
This “given” is a philosophical view and has nothing to do with science.

Of course this “given” piles on even more philosophy.
For the account then goes on. “.. and life arose from nonlife”. ( just like that!!! as a famous comedian would announce when comically doing his magic tricks)

However, there is more to this tale, because today the atmosphere contains about 21% oxygen.

If there was no oxygen to begin with where then did all the oxygen come from?

Any ideas?

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Европа_(спутник)

"In the satellite (Europe) is present thin atmosphere composed mainly of oxygen."

– And where there is oxygenation? It is also possible on Earth as it formed, as on Europe:

"The limited surface of the atmosphere is formed by radiolysis (the decomposition of molecules by radiation) [64]. Solar ultraviolet radiation and charged particles (ions and electrons) from the face of Jupiter’s magnetosphere with the icy surface of Europa, splitting water into its components – hydrogen and oxygen. These chemical components are adsorbed and then "sprayed" into the atmosphere. Further components under the influence of the same radiation leaving the surface, and the balance of these two processes form the atmosphere [65]. Molecular oxygen – the most dense component of the atmosphere, because it has a long period of life after return to the surface it does not settle (frozen), a molecule of water or hydrogen peroxide, but, rather, again knocked out by radiation from the surface. Molecular hydrogen is never settles on the surface, leaving it as it is light enough and at such a low gravity disappears in space [66] [67]. "

Thanks Leopol, however, how does this apply to earth?

Without any more boring details of chemistry, the current consensus is that photosynthesis, initially from cyanobacteria produced the oxygen.

Now it takes one CO2 molecule (Carbon Dioxide) to produce one carbon atom and one O2 (oxygen gas) molecule.

So if there is 21% oxygen in the atmosphere now then there must have been 21% Carbon dioxide in the early earth atmosphere.

The current carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is 388.5 parts per million which 0.0388%.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

It has been calculated that prior to the industrial revolution, around 1750 CE, the atmospheric concentration was 280 parts per million, ie 0.0337%.

So the rise in CO2 concentration over this period amounts to 0.0051% and this rise in concentration is causing immense concern by many Climatologists, over it’s effect to life on this planet.

What effect therefore would an atmosphere containing 21% CO2 have on life, let alone getting it started.

The planet Venus has an atmosphere rich in CO2. Go here to examine it’s effects.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/cl … earth.html
Here is what it says

So is all this hype about an early earth atmosphere being devoid of oxygen really based on science, or are these musings ( I am trying to be polite here) simply the result of a pre conceived philosophy of abiogenesis.

The conditions that actually would destroy life are the same conditions that got life started. Does that really make any sense?

When life began the atmosphere of the earth was essentially no different than it is today.

Is this view scientifically plausible or implausible?

Here is my theory. It is just a theory, but I think it makes some valid points:

http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/201 … gin-birth/

Scottie

Initially, the Earth as a planet and all, had a higher hydrogen atmosphere with small amounts of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon. Then there was the dissipation of solar wind hydrogen. Oxygen, nitrogen and carbon remained, and the hydrogen is moved farther – to the giant planets, which gradually adsorbed. Venus has an obvious deficiency of hydrogen, so there is nothing to do water ocean! But on Jupiter’s moon – Europe – more water than all the oceans of the Earth!

arthuriandaily

Your speciality appears to be random ramblings.
My advice would be to stick to what your good at, not that you have to follow it.
However if you do then less ignorance of science would be displayed.

Leopol

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, as you seem to be making the same point that the lecture I referred to makes.

The lecture concludes with this point.

My point is that questions 2 and 3 that relate to the earth, are not being adequately addressed by evolutionary theorists.

Accretion theory that you and the lecture clearly are referring cannot answer these questions, therefore the answer must lay elsewhere.

The view that photosynthesis (mainly from cyanobacteria) was the answer lacks scientific credibility simply because the amount of CO2 that would have been required to generate the oxygen we have in the atmosphere would have prevented life from even getting started. That then raises the question as to how the cyanobacteria even got started?

There is also another problem with this idea of photosynthesis.
Recall the increase in concentration of 0.0051% in CO2 since about 1750.
This is telling us that all the photosynthesis currently occurring today has not been able to absorb just this small percentage of CO2.

How much vegetation can we imagine would have been required to absorb all the 21% CO2?

This whole idea is fundamentally flawed.

All this goes to buttress my argument that an outside agency was involved.
That is why the genesis narrative (without all the bells and whistles that creationists attach to it) makes sense.

There are none of these chicken and egg situations we continually find in materialist explanations.

scottie

Well water – hydrogen and oxygen, and, two moles of hydrogen per mole of oxygen. With Venus hydrogen dissipated due to the solar wind, so the oxygen contacted with carbon. The result was the CO2 and CO.

The theory of accretion, I do not like. I believe that all the planets, stars, the so-called "Main Sequence" – were released in the form of fragments from the end sleeves Central galaxy’s hyper-astroid. It’s such a huge Laplace-black-star in the center of galaxy, weight – how many millions of solar masses. From two opposite-facing spindle-shaped elevations on the equator of the object under the influence of centrifugal forces are constantly torn plume material, which is fragmented into pieces of various sizes, with the Coriolis force, give them the time of rotation. Since are formed spiral arms of galaxy.

scottie
Oxygen was first associated with the whole hydrogen due to an excess of hydrogen. But after the dissipation of most of the hydrogen started radiolysis of water in the upper atmosphere. Oxygen remained, and hydrogen – dissipated. Later, when the Earth moved in from outer space holders nano-molecular peptide nucleic technology, the situation began to change. Apparently, these first settlers were stored after photosynthesis in the form of oxygen, peroxides, and hydrogen – in the form of hydrocarbons.
But if by the time of colonization of these intelligent ancestors of bacteria in the atmosphere and hydrosphere have been a lot of oxygen – oxygen store in the form of peroxide was not necessary …

But if, in the hydrosphere, or anywhere else would be an excess of hydrocarbons … Wow! ! It’s on Titan! That’s where the bacteria stockpile peroxide instead of carbohydrates! Yyess, it also goes in my sci-fi story! 😉

Yes, the question, where did the carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere? And it got in touch with calcium and oxygen in carbonates. Yes, even in deposits shale, coal and oil.

Try to look for Miller-Urey experiment and more alike experiments which concluded origin of life .

Leopol
I know we are going off subject a bit but it does have some relevance.

I agree about accretion theory. It creates more questions than it provides answers, but it is a poplar theory and that is why I cited it.

However the Laplace Black star model also has it’s problems.

By defination a Laplace black star has an escape velocity that is greater than light speed.
Any matter leaving it will be moving at less than light speed. Therefore it will return to the star as gravitation pulls it back.
It therefore cannot escape to form planets etc unless it travels at a greater velocity than the black star’s escape velocity.
I am not aware of any accretion mass that has been known to travel at above light speed.

However this is all really quite academic, because whether the atmosphere contained either CO2 or O2 it would not matter. Either way metabolic pathways could not get started.
The theory of photosynthesis is fundamentally flawed.

As I have stated before there is no scientific reason to conclude that the current atmospheric breakdown was any different to when life first started..

btw have you been in touch with James Cameron yet 🙂

[quote="scottie"]arthuriandaily

Your speciality appears to be random ramblings.
My advice would be to stick to what your good at, not that you have to follow it.
However if you do then less ignorance of science would be displayed.

Leopol

Interesting, though the relevance seems to be as elusive as the scientific evidence.

Is there any specificity, or is the randomness of generality your specialty?

Arthurian

arthuriandaily

I am a molecular biologist, in general, like biology, astrophysics, and much more! It’s a hobby, but I can find the necessary literature and now I can recognize manipulation. Here, for example, "black holes" of general relativity and the "Black Star Laplace" – it was interesting to me. I realized that the so-called "Black holes "of general relativity – is a clever manipulation, which deliberately ignored the kinetic energy! It turns out that the approach to the singularity of the density requires an infinite energy! And because there is nowhere to take it, then this state is not achievable. So there is only "Black Star Laplace".

vinayaksabnis

Do I take it to mean that you consider the Miller-Urey experiments and other like ones to have answered the question as to how life originated, or did you mean that these experiments demonstrated the opposite?

Could you clarify please.

vinayaksabnis

Raises the experiment of Stanley Miller back in the 1950’s.

I am not sure what his view actually is regarding the results, I await his clarification.
However his experiment and indeed succeeding ones did show one clearly noticeable feature.

Robert Shapiro had a comment on this in the edge event I have referred to before.
He recounts a meeting he had with Stanley Miller.

The above is on a video clip here. (scroll about half way down to locate it)
http://www.edge.org/documents/life/life_index.html
The rest of his comment is transcribed below and is available in pdf form on the same site from page 90.

The point that Shapiro is making, and he is an evolutionary scientist, is this.
Investigators design their own atmosphere that has nothing to do with the reality of prebiotic conditions.
They prepare their designs to try to achieve the result they are seeking. That is the start and end of it.

With these atmospheres that are cooked up in a lab, has any serious thought been given as to how that particular atmosphere could have naturally developed?
Of course not, because no theory can account for it.

Their atmospheres are specifically designed to produce the result they wish.

In the genesis narrative that is precisely what is stated. The atmosphere was specifically designed to accommodate the life that was to come.

Of course a materialist view says you can’t have an outside agency designing because science can only deal with natural processes.
The irony that seems to escape this type of thinking is that the very processes they are denying, they actually use to prove – what?
That the prebiotic atmosphere can only come about by design. 🙂

You’re using stupid logic. Just because we can create something, doesn’t mean, it must be created by someone.

I though you are an engineer, but obviously not in chemistry, right? So you have no education in related fields whatsoever, but you will complain all the time.
Nevermind, the point is, that oxygen is quite reactive and thus it reacts with the other elements and forms other compounds. If you knew anything about chemistry, you would know, that getting oxygen from SiO2 is really hard task.
Furthermore, there are other planets where there is oxygen in some compounds, but it is not in the atmosphere as O2 and this is no speculation. So why should we assume that the early Earth was different?

And how did the oxygen arise? Well, from the organisms, obviously.

Jackbean.

Where did I say that oxygen formed from Quartz or Feldspar?
It didn’t and that is my argument. Please read what I am writing.

The oxygen must have been around in the compounds that formed the rocks according to the theory of accretion.
For it not to be around after the rocks formed must mean that all the oxygen was used up with no remainder, for any atmosphere. That was what I said.

Now is that realistic?

Because that is the theory of a pre-biotic atmosphere.

Therefore the question is where did the oxygen come from?

You say

So a simple question now
What organisms are you referring to.

Now think before you respond, as I have no desire to see you digging a bigger hole for yourself.

You said:

And I’m saying, that it’s basic inroganic chemistry, which tells us that.

So, where do you think does the oxygen come from if not from the rocks?