Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
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.
Sorry but I am having great difficulty in understanding your posts.
It maybe a language problem.
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…
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
You will find more information on the scientists including video clips from this event.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
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.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
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!
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.
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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests