Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Sorry for the delay.
I didn't know about Lysenkoism., so I had to do a little research.
I get your point though.
If only serious minded people would put their religious beliefs aside when discussing science matters there would be a lot less angst around. When I use the term religious beliefs, I include the materialists who after all claim to be atheists.
In the past the Churches ruled the roost and demanded allegiance to their dogmas.
That has now been taken over by the material atheists who demand the same allegiance, with the creationists and Id people trying to reclaim their lost ground.
Darwinism has now become the new dogma and any other view is crackpot and deserves only ridicule.
Although that is now changing again.
Funny old world
you're wrong again. Darwinism is overcome for some time. Since that time there has been several other theories so you're actually fighting a dead man (and this is meant imaginary, not Darwin)
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
One of the great difficulties I have had, was in trying to get any of my detractors to explain what their understanding of evolutionary theory was.
I finally decided to explain my understanding and then at last canalon posted his agreement with it, albeit with some additions.
I didn’t notice you offering any other view, so your latest statement lacks any weight.
I thought we had gone past this obfuscation.
by scottie » Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:51 pm
You know very well what I mean by Darwinism so please stop trying to play word games.
Darwin's theory - "On the origin of species by natural selection." Vulgar evolutionism - a hybrid between Darwin's theory and the idea of the origin and evolution of life from primary primitive replicators to "crown of the evolutionary creation" - Homo Sapiens-sapiens-sa-...xn...-ns... Meanwhile, Darwin's theory does not contradict the theory of devolution! Quite the contrary - a perfect match. But only at those stages when there is no intellectual activity and create and develop technology.
Here's an interesting example of devolution - the distribution of gene technology between the new species, outgoing from the initial species of the universal type.
"In all vertebrates, some insects and mollusks in the blood protein is present ferric iron, but because their blood has a red color. Blood clam brachiopods contains hemerythrin - it contains iron to five times more than the hemoglobin. Oxygenated blood hemerythrin gives a purple hue, and gave oxygen to tissues, such blood turns pink. In polychaetes - the other iron-containing protein - hlorokruorin. The basis of it is not ferric iron, ferrous and which gives the blood and tissue fluid green. In ascidian blood is colorless, it is based - gemovanady containing vanadium ions. In octopus, spiders, scorpions, crabs, respiratory pigment of the blood is hemocyanin, in which iron is present instead of copper (Cu2 +). Combines with oxygen of air is blue hemocyanin, and by giving oxygen to tissues - a few discolored. As a result, the arteries flowing dark-blue blood and the veins blue. However, some shellfish oxygen transport of substances close to the hemoglobin, and other similar proteins contain manganese." http://otvet.mail.ru/question/16010365/
That's because, as interesting! Some evolutionists, created a series of painful anthropocentrism taboo. For example, some evolutionists reject even the thought of which created a strong di-polivergence of species of amphibians-Turbellarians in the Cambrian paleo-civilization, who had blood all at once these blood pigments!
Lets get back to basics.
The cell is the basic unit of life.
No one has disputed that simple fact.
All the internal molecular systems inside the cell are, in themselves, inert.
Again no one has disputed that.
The simplest form of life is a single cell prokaryote,..
Again no one disputes that.
E coli is a single cell prokaryote and is classed as a species of bacteria.
Again I don’t expect any one to dispute this either.
It is obvious therefore that the basic unit of life is also the basic unit of a species
Therefore the origin of life and the origin of species are one and the same thing.
Proteins are probably the most important class of biochemical molecules, although of course lipids and carbohydrates are also essential for life. Proteins are the basis for the major structural components of animal and human tissue.
A Ribosome is a molecule consisting of two subunits that read the genetic sequence and makes Proteins.
A prokaryotic ribosome is made up of three kinds of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and about 50 types of protein.
The eukaryotic ribosome, however, consists of five types of rRNA and around 80 types of protein.
The cell membrane or plasma membrane is a biological membrane that separates the interior of all cells from the outside environment. The cell membrane is selectively permeable to ions and organic molecules and controls the movement of substances in and out of cells. It basically protects the cell from outside forces.
Integral membrane proteins penetrate or are embedded in the phospholipid bilayer.
Without the membrane to protect it the cell would disintegrate.
This is all pretty basic biology that even an engineer can comprehend.
Now here is the dilemma for any origin of life biologist.
The Ribosome manufactures the protein, but it itself is made up of at least 50 proteins.
Ribosome cannot exist unless there are Proteins around.
Proteins cannot exist unless there are Ribosomes around.
The cell membrane cannot exist unless there are proteins about.
Ribosomes and Proteins cannot exist unless the is a membrane around.
This is one of the many conundrums the cell exhibits.
Neo Darwinian theory centers on Natural Selection as being the process that drives the evolution of living organisms.
It is obvious the proteins along with the other cell components are inert and therefore cannot be subject to any process of natural selection. The only laws applicable to any inert molecules are the natural laws governing physics and chemistry.
As I have reported before, there are no plausible natural biochemical pathways that lead to the formation of a cell. This is coming from the most august of scientific Institutions.
There is also the matter of the origin of the genetic code which again is being shown to be, not a natural process.
Therefore the only plausible pathway to cell formation is an artificial process. This is a process that is regularly demonstrated in Genetic Labs around the world.
However the difficulty goes beyond that.
Even if we assume that somehow the cell can or was constructed there is still the problem of how the cell can come alive.
This can be said for two reasons.
1) Viruses are very complicated molecules made up of proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, carbohydrates etc. Yet they are not considered alive because, without cells they are unable to multiply. There are other reasons as well. Now if these very complicated molecules made from basically the same ingredients as cells, do not constitute life, it shows that that life is something more than the bringing together of these very complicated molecules.
2) We already know that life comes only from another life. This is an established biological fact.
These conclusions are based on science, logc and evidence.
What prevents any biologist from acknowledging these conclusions other than a philosophical bias?
I think you just disproved the existence of the cell.
Scottie, hrotects the cell cell envelope. Membrane does not protect, but a universal substrate for placement and activation of polypeptide production lines and signaling. This is in terms of technology. But the logic of the theory of "Engineering design and the Macrodevolution" of the membrane - a direct descendant of those smart membrane beings who once created a nucleic polypeptide molecular nano-technology.
Correction -- What I have shown is that there is no natural explanation to the origin of the cell.
Maybe you need to do some more work in your understanding of language.
Certainly your understanding of biology is at best, a "work in progress".
I understand your need to avoid the issue so all you can be left with, is your rather particular form humour.
However please carry on, at least you are providing some entertainment, if nothing else.
Let get some more basics up front.
Two among the most prominent evolutionary proponents of evolutionary theory today are Richard Dawkins and Freeman Dyson.
Here are some extracts from an email exchange between these two scientists.
Freeman Dyson view.
Dawkins response by email is here.
You will find this exchange from the recent discussion “Life what a concept” at the Edge Special Event.
You will need to scroll down almost to the bottom of the page.
So whose is right?
Is it Dyson, whose understanding of Darwinian evolution is based on Competition between non interbreeding species
Or is it Dawkins view based on competition for survival within species.
What does this say about any factual basis for the theory?
Is it any wonder that no one on this forum was confident enough to explain their view. I eventually had to spell out one view to even elicit a response.
It says nothing other than merely reaffirming my statement that this is all about philosophy.
Very funny, scottie.
You are arguing that the cell cannot function since the ribosome is part protein, and the ribosome is responsible for peptide synthesis; therefore, according to you, the protein cannot be part of the ribosome. Yet, obviously this is not true. Because the ribosome seems to be ubiquitous in almost all organisms, the ribosome must have originated very early in the history of life. Ribosome evolution began with a complex of nucleic acids that probably had another function early on, but acquired the function of protein synthesis. Only later were proteins incorporated into the ribosome.
I would have been a creationist if my biology knowledge was as limited as you claim. All I am going to say is that your knowledge of evolution would have been a lot more complete had you consulted a biology textbook sometime in the past. If you want to know more about the origin of cells, please consult external sources on abiogenesis before posting a reply. The most important experiments are Fox's experiments with protobionts, and Wachtershauser's hypothesis. The Wikipedia article for abiogenesis should be a great help.
Please take the time to understand the responses that others are posting before you attempt to attack the response and try to "further" your argument.
I'm not willing to slog through 23 pages to try to figure out what's going on here. Reading through a few random pages, though, I can't see what most of this has to do with the origin of life. All I can discern is the standard, tiresome creationist/rationalist crap sprinkled with a dash of delusion. Is there a point to any of this, or do all of you just have too much time to waste? May I suggest that individual discussions have their own threads? This one just seems to be a dump for anything anyone wants to say.
Scottie: can you state your position in 25 words or less (concerning the origin of life)? If you have something else in particular you would like to discuss, could you please start a new thread?
Leopol: What's the weather like on your planet? Photos would be welcome.
The origin of life is, of course, a very interesting topic, one that has entertained me for a very long time. I know I will die without ever knowing how it occurred, but that has never detracted from the enjoyment of my ignorance. Ignorance is what science feeds on. Anyone who says "I know" or dares to use the p word (proof) is automatically disqualified.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest