Login

Join for Free!
116837 members


CHALLENGE: Why should there be an “origin of species”?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

CHALLENGE: Why should there be an “origin of species”?

Postby Cat » Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:43 pm

1. All natural systems are “cycles”
http://thegodguy.files.wordpress.com/20 ... f_life.jpg
Find one that is not (I don’t think it exists)

2. Most chemical reactions are reversible – another example of “cycle”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/ch ... ibrium.jpg
Note: theoretically all reactions are reversible under right conditions.

3. Planets/orbits/galaxies – all circular/elliptical – point is they have no beginning and no end.

4. Biochemical pathways are cycles
http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/pictures/kreb3.gif
Those that do not seem to be cycles might be simply too large for us to see in full.
Please, report any that you think “complete” and non-cyclic in nature.

So, if nothing in nature has an actual beginning or the end, why should “life” be any different? What if it’s also a closed circle?
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: CHALLENGE: Why should there be an “origin of species”?

Postby JackBean » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:45 pm

Really? I thought you know something...

Cat wrote:1. All natural systems are “cycles”
http://thegodguy.files.wordpress.com/20 ... f_life.jpg
Find one that is not (I don’t think it exists)

That's not really relevant to evolution of species, is it?

Cat wrote:2. Most chemical reactions are reversible – another example of “cycle”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/ch ... ibrium.jpg
Note: theoretically all reactions are reversible under right conditions.

This is no circle.

Cat wrote:3. Planets/orbits/galaxies – all circular/elliptical – point is they have no beginning and no end.

LOL

Cat wrote:4. Biochemical pathways are cycles
http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/pictures/kreb3.gif
Those that do not seem to be cycles might be simply too large for us to see in full.
Please, report any that you think “complete” and non-cyclic in nature.

Now, the question is, what is complete for you. Of course you can make one huge biochemical cycle starting with CO2 and ending with CO2, but that's not purpose of the metabolism contrary to the well-known biochemical cycles.

Cat wrote:So, if nothing in nature has an actual beginning or the end, why should “life” be any different? What if it’s also a closed circle?

You mean like humans evolving into bacteria?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: CHALLENGE: Why should there be an “origin of species”?

Postby Cat » Sat May 04, 2013 8:30 pm

If you want to go sentence by sentence:

JackBean wrote:
Cat wrote:1. All natural systems are “cycles”
http://thegodguy.files.wordpress.com/20 ... f_life.jpg
Find one that is not (I don’t think it exists)

That's not really relevant to evolution of species, is it?


I am NOT talking about "evolution". I am talking about the "origin". Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing...

JackBean wrote:
Cat wrote:2. Most chemical reactions are reversible – another example of “cycle”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/ch ... ibrium.jpg
Note: theoretically all reactions are reversible under right conditions.

This is no circle.


NOT Circle, CYCLE: Reactants to products to reactants...

JackBean wrote:
Cat wrote:3. Planets/orbits/galaxies – all circular/elliptical – point is they have no beginning and no end.

LOL


I am glad you find it funny.

JackBean wrote:
Cat wrote:4. Biochemical pathways are cycles
http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/pictures/kreb3.gif
Those that do not seem to be cycles might be simply too large for us to see in full.
Please, report any that you think “complete” and non-cyclic in nature.

Now, the question is, what is complete for you. Of course you can make one huge biochemical cycle starting with CO2 and ending with CO2, but that's not purpose of the metabolism contrary to the well-known biochemical cycles.


First, "metabolism" has NO "purpose" as it in NOT alive to contemplate one. Second, I am trying (and apparently blundering) to establish that conservation of matter and energy laws predispose any life process' to being cyclic in nature.

JackBean wrote:
Cat wrote:So, if nothing in nature has an actual beginning or the end, why should “life” be any different? What if it’s also a closed circle?

You mean like humans evolving into bacteria?


NO. I mean non-living matter to live organism conversion...
Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing...
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm


Re: CHALLENGE: Why should there be an “origin of species”?

Postby JackBean » Sun May 05, 2013 2:13 pm

1. origin is one point, evolution is process. To have cycle, you have to have process. "Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing..." that's evolution... but it's not cycle (unless the bacteria would evolve into micelle)

2. circle-cycle, there's no difference. And that doesn't mean that it is cycle, just because they write some arrows up and down. It's just back and forth.

3. of course it's funny, because you talk about change in time and then you mention shape!

4. Of course it has some purpose. Purpose of TCA cycle is to metabolise acetyl-CoA, provide intermediate metabolites for amino acids metabolism etc., Calvin cycle's purpose is to bind CO2 and convert it into sugar. I'm not saying it's willing, but it is the purpose. There is difference between these two.

Cat wrote:NO. I mean non-living matter to live organism conversion...
Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing...

Where is the cycle? I see only one direction.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: CHALLENGE: Why should there be an “origin of species”?

Postby easr1 » Fri May 10, 2013 2:47 pm

The electron transport chain is "one way".
easr1
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: CHALLENGE: Why should there be an “origin of species”?

Postby Cat » Mon May 20, 2013 2:21 pm

JackBean wrote:
Cat wrote:NO. I mean non-living matter to live organism conversion...
Micelle to liposome to bacteria thing...

Where is the cycle? I see only one direction.


Let me clarify:

1. Unless/until someone can produce in the lab "Micelle to liposome to bacteria" spontaneous process, I will not believe in "origin of life THROUGH process of evolution".

2. It seems more likely to me that origin of "life" far precedes "life on this planet". It seems to me that a fall of a foreign object (+bacteria) from another planet/system into primeval sea is much more likely than "Micelle to liposome to bacteria" evolution.

Example: we sent robots to Mars. As far as we know, there is no life currently on that planet. It's very likely that robots were contaminated with bacteria. Should life appear on Mars (or other planets nearby) in the future, it would probably be because of our actions...
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Postby JackBean » Mon May 20, 2013 2:40 pm

Nice try, but this only moves the problem of origin of life somewhere else somewhen else, but doesn't say, how did life emerge.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby Cat » Mon May 20, 2013 2:53 pm

Exactly my point. I think the "true" origin (if it exists) is so far removed in both time and space that none of the current theories on the subject can possibly be true.
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Postby JackBean » Tue May 21, 2013 6:49 pm

now you're just unreasonable...
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re:

Postby thoffnagle » Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:47 pm

Cat wrote:Exactly my point. I think the "true" origin (if it exists) is so far removed in both time and space that none of the current theories on the subject can possibly be true.


Why can't they be true? There's no reason to believe that the laws of physics have changed since then. And, while we don't know the exact conditions that were present, we can make reasonable guesses. Lastly, if you really ask a scientist who is studying this topic, he will tell you that s/he is looking for possible/likely ways in which life began. If s/he finds a possible path, s/he would have to admit that s/he won't know for sure if that is how life actually did begin.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."
Anonymous
thoffnagle
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:10 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Cat » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:13 pm

thoffnagle wrote:Lastly, if you really ask a scientist who is studying this topic, he will tell you that s/he is looking for possible/likely ways in which life began. If s/he finds a possible path, s/he would have to admit that s/he won't know for sure if that is how life actually did begin.


The problem is that the scientist you depict is a nearly extinct creature. There is a trend to base new conclusions on the CONLUSIONS of scientists that came before us instead of re-examining the original FACTS.

Look at the simple example:

Evolution = change over time

Facts = genetic and phenotypic changes observed in the lab

Conclusion = evolution is real.

Evolution of human kind:

Facts = Lucy, other archeological data

Common reasoning =

Assumption 1 = we are more advanced than our ancestors (no bases except our ego)
Assumption 2 = our scull is larger, thus larger brain, thus we are smarter. That is ego again since in our generation (fact that is observed today) abnormally large heads are associated with mental retardation and not with increased intellect. In fact, Einstein's Brain was smaller than usual...
Assumption 3 = "evolution" (above) proves human evolution. Which is just NOT true. All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS. For human evolution to take place it would have had to be gene GAIN. This gain is INFERRED from archeological data, not OBSERVED.

Conclusion - depends on your assumptions...
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: Re:

Postby thoffnagle » Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:13 pm

Cat wrote:All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS. For human evolution to take place it would have had to be gene GAIN. This gain is INFERRED from archeological data, not OBSERVED.


I'm not an anthropologist, so I will have to do a little research on this and post again. However, I do question your claim that "All DIRECT evidence of evolution available to date is evidence of gene LOSS." Do you have citations?

Also, your statement that "For human evolution to take place it would have had to be gene GAIN" is not true. Gene modification is also a path for evolution.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."
Anonymous
thoffnagle
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:10 pm

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron