Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

Sorry, I don't place much stock in the garbage on the internet.

EMPTY Denial.
You are welcome to refute that AI summary of Many other on and Off Net knowledge.
Scvmbag posting.
You lost.
`

 

[abu afak]

Fossils are only one of 18 converging lines of evidence for the theory of evolution.

All things considered, fossils don't mean much.

Evolution is molecular, it has nothing to do with what we see (or don't see).

Another Idiotic statement.
The molecular/genetic determines the appearance.
and in Turn appearance tells us there is a new form/fossil Before, instead of, and without oft unavailable 1Million-1Billion yr old DNA.
And on you go with your blatant Misleads, falsehoods, and casual dismissals.

'

 

[PoliticalChic]

The basic position of creationists is "life is impossible without God".

But the minute they try to go beyond that, they demonstrate several forms of misunderstanding of the words that are in their very own Bible.

I think it's extremely arrogant to second guess God. Life is real, we're looking at it every day. In creationist terms, we're looking at God's handiwork.

But the creationists are arrogant, they think they know how God did it. Which is most certainly not the case. It is in fact the evolutionists who are much closer to discovering how God did it.

Creationists are trying to revive a whimsical capricious God from the Old Testament, based on words they don't understand.

The Bible says specifically "that" God did it, and it doesn't say even one word about how or when.

It is in fact the arrogant creationists who are engaging in silly wild ass guesses. Whereas the evolutionists are engaging in discovery, which is a much better strategy.

This has nothing to do with Creationists.

This has to do with being able to put food on the table.


That and the Leftist ideology so prevalent in this society.

Now, if a noted paleontologist can question the Darwin doctrine, why can’t the rest of us? Here’s why: you will be ridiculed as a nut, a ‘Bible-thumper,’ and as ignorant.

But you’d be correct.



But for some, the Darwinist establishment is sacred – and questioning it is virtually a crime.

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Communities — Voices and Insights - Washington Times

So very true.

 

[Leo123]

Now you're being ridiculous.

Then prove it by providing a link to an experiment that created life from elements only. How is that ridiculous?

 

[Leo123]

For me, intelligent design does not have to be called 'God.' A living cell has thousands of working parts that are animated. That does not just fall together in some primordial pond or under some rock. IMO, there has to be some intellect involved.

 

[scruffy]

EMPTY Denial.
You are welcome to refute that AI summary of Many other on and Off Net knowledge.
Scvmbag posting.
You lost.
`

Now you're being ridiculous too.

It is a TRUE statement that the theory of evolution can not account for the fossil record.

And that is probably because evolution is not the only contributor to the fossil record.

Extinction events also contribute to the fossil record.

We know of at least FIVE of them, each of which were thoroughly devastating to life on earth.

The Permian-Triassic extinction was the worst, wiping out 95% of marine life and over 3/4 of land species.

We don't know what caused it. There are several theories floating around, none of which we'll ever be able to prove. One theory says earth got hit by an asteroid.

It is completely unreasonable to require "proof" of any of these theories, including evolution. The best we're going to get is confidence that the theory explains the available data.

 

[abu afak]

Now you're being ridiculous too.

It is a TRUE statement that the theory of evolution can not account for the fossil record.

And that is probably because evolution is not the only contributor to the fossil record.

Extinction events also contribute to the fossil record.

We know of at least FIVE of them, each of which were thoroughly devastating to life on earth.

The Permian-Triassic extinction was the worst, wiping out 95% of marine life and over 3/4 of land species.

We don't know what caused it. There are several theories floating around, none of which we'll ever be able to prove. One theory says earth got hit by an asteroid.

It is completely unreasonable to require "proof" of any of these theories, including evolution. The best we're going to get is confidence that the theory explains the available data.

It is true that Evolution is by far the best explanation, and indeed is regarded as Fact.

'Proof' is a word Creationists use to raise the bar to impossible and in an attempt to reach a false equivalency.
""I believe in god, you believe in Evolution, both have no proof... ergo they are of equal weight.""

Of course this disregards the EVIDENCE, which for Evo is Overwhelming, but for god/s NONE.
That is why we see the word 'proof' and somewhat how YOU are using it as well; to sew doubt.

You have a lot of knowledge but you are a wise guy so nullify some of it with your cavalier BS.

`

 

[Robert W]

As recent developments have proven that the Democrats/Left has no compunction as far as lies, hoaxes and slander, it is time to highlight their similar attempts at the basis of Western Civilization….religion.
And the use of Darwin’s theory to attack same.

In this thread, an interview that Piers Morgan had with Dr. Stephen Meyer, about the actual science behind Charles Darwin’s theory (spoiler: there is none)​

When it comes to evolution, politics is more prominent than science. And with that in mind, .....a simple rule that will clarify the place Darwin’s Theory holds:
Any article, event, opinion, data or study that redounds in favor of the Left/Demorat Party, is to be considered a lie or hoax.

• One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
  Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

• I will provide the interview of Meyer by Piers Morgan…..and quotes from that interview. Meyer provides FACTS. Put aside the Democrat/Liberal/Marxist anti-religion propaganda, and focus on the science that demolishes Darwin’s Theory.
• 
  
• 
  

• 
  
• Tucker Carlson, on Joe Rogan: “Evolution as articulated by Darwin is kinda not true. There is no evidence for it….if all life originated from a single organism, there would be a fossil record of that….and there is not.”
• 
  
• Meyer: “Here in London, 2016, there was a conference held by the most august scientific society, the Royal Society, a group of evolutionary biologists, are dissatisfied with Darwin’s method of evolutionary change, natural selection and random mutation …lacks the creative power to generate major changes in life.”

People that believe in the Darwin theory ignore that animals like fish, elephants, seals, snakes, insects according to his theory began as a bacteria like creation that somehow morphs into things from dogs to Camels to men to piss ants.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For me, intelligent design does not have to be called 'God.' A living cell has thousands of working parts that are animated. That does not just fall together in some primordial pond or under some rock. IMO, there has to be some intellect involved.

There are actually a number of other theories of life on the planet.

 

[scruffy]

There are actually a number of other theories of life on the planet.

There are?

Like what?

 

[alang1216]

There are actually a number of other theories of life on the planet.

Do tell.

 

[Leo123]

There are actually a number of other theories of life on the planet.

Yes, I know and they are probably more true than the primordial pond fairy tale.

 

[Leo123]

There are?

Like what?

Seeding from an unknown space origin for one.

 

[scruffy]

Seeding from an unknown space origin for one.

Wouldn't that still have to involve evolution, subsequently?

 

[alang1216]

Seeding from an unknown space origin for one.

How did that seedling come to be?

 

[scruffy]

For me, intelligent design does not have to be called 'God.' A living cell has thousands of working parts that are animated. That does not just fall together in some primordial pond or under some rock. IMO, there has to be some intellect involved.

Well, so let's take a closer look at that.

According to the timetable, earth is about 4.5 billion years old. And, the first prokaryotic cells (mycoplasma, which is about the simplest cell we know of - it's basically a bacterium minus the cell wall) are somewhere around 4 billion years. So that leaves half a billion years for a primitive cell to form.

Mycoplasma has DNA, it's a single circular strand - which means, it requires tRNA. Transfer RNA can be considered an enzyme, but it's a small one, its chain length is only about 75 nucleotides. So let's be generous and use round numbers and say it requires 250 DNA base pairs to code for it, per type. Times 20 types, so about 5000 base pairs in total.

Mycoplasma also has 70s ribosomes, which contain about 4500 nucleotides, so let's say 15,000 base pairs. So for the native replicating machinery we're talking 20,000 base pairs. But let's be generous and call it 25k.

Next, mycoplasma requires about 50 different proteins to function and to self replicate. The total number of base pairs in a single strand of mycoplasma DNA is about 500,000, and the average sequence length of one of its proteins is about 400 amino acids, which would equate with 1200 base pairs, times 50, so about 60,000 base pairs in total.

So what do these numbers tell us? First, they tell us that mycoplasma has more DNA than it needs. By at least a factor of 5. What does the rest of the DNA do? No one really knows. But J Craig Venter and his colleagues in San Diego showed us that you can remove the excess and still have a fully functional self replicating mycoplasma. So the excess DNA is apparently "not necessary".

So here are two questions:

First, how long does it take to "evolve" a single strand of 500k DNA base pairs?

And second, if there is such an evolution, what are the chances of obtaining a working ribosome?

The first question is pretty easy to answer. Nucleotides can be synthesized directly and abiotically from acetaldehyde and glyceraldehyde-5-phosphate, the reaction takes about a day in a seawater solution at room temperature (the reaction is pH and temperature dependent, but the point is the raw material for DNA is very easy to come by). Then, once we have a supply of nucleotides we have to chain them together, and this is where we get our first glimpse of real evolution. Because nucleotide bonds form randomly but they are unstable, they break almost as fast as they make. To get something stable requires "nucleation", which means you need 4 or more base pairs in a row before water will stabilize the chain.

It turns out that this process is a lot easier to accomplish if you have RNA "first", which also means you have to have proteins "first". This is the origin of the RNA-world hypothesis. It says that instead of synthesizing the DNA abiotically, you do it from existing RNA. Which requires an enzyme called a polymerase, which is a protein. So before we can do this calculation, we need to do a similar calculation for proteins.

Scientists have done all these calculations. The short story is that half a billion years is a LONG time, you don't need nearly that much. You only need about 1/100 as much to get a full strand of 500,000 base pairs of DNA. And, this doesn't happen in just "one" micelle, it happens in billions upon billions of micelles simultaneously. Each one will have a slightly different result. So your chances overall, are the chances for one micelle, multiplied by a factor of a billion or more. The resulting answer is, it's not only possible, it's "very likely".

Which takes us immediately to the second question. If you have billions and billions of "tries", what are the chances that at least one of them will result in a working ribosome? The answer is, you get a huge advantage from the redundancy. If you stipulate that oceans cover half the earth, that gives you about 250 million square kilometers, so if you have one micelle per square meter you have a redundancy of about 250 trillion. Even without working through the detailed math you can see that the answer is once again "very likely". You have 250 trillion examples building at 1 extension per day and you only require 60,000. The odds are practically overwhelming, they approach 1.

We can now take this further by considering that the "failed" protein sequences can be reused for something else. Even if a protein fails as a polymerase, maybe it will succeed in moving phosphates around or linking glycine subunits or something. The picture that emerges is a vast collection of micelles with heterogeneous contents.

And now you have half a billion years to mix and match. Many of the micelles will get torn up on the rocks, where they will dump their contents back into the water. And where the loose protein will then be incorporated into other micelles by endocytosis.

The first gap in the evolutionary timeline is between cell stability and self replication, and now we see it isn't that much of a gap after all. A short time with this mix-and-match process will give you all kinds of synthase and reductase enzymes, only a few of which are actually required. The exchange of raw materials functions very much like a virus, it carries proteins and genetic information from one cell to another.

So the initial set of questions reduces to an issue of "how are the useful sequences kept around". Apparently a lot more is kept around than needs to be, because we have 5x as much DNA as we need.

If you actually think through this stuff you end up having to conclude it's eminently plausible. It doesn't require design, it just requires lots and lots of trial and error. Half a billion years worth.

 

[abu afak]

For me, intelligent design does not have to be called 'God.' A living cell has thousands of working parts that are animated. That does not just fall together in some primordial pond or under some rock. IMO, there has to be some intellect involved.

LOL Gordon Lightbrain.
ID needs an intelligent DesignER.. IOW god.
You can "Call" it 'Shoe' instead but it's god, and back to supernatural nonsense.

`

 

[abu afak]

Seeding from an unknown space origin for one.

Being Stupid, you're just kicking the SAME life problem down the galaxy, Not solving it.
`

 

[scruffy]

LOL Gordon Lightbrain.
ID needs an intelligent DesignER.. IOW god.
You can "Call" it 'Shoe' instead but it's god, and back to supernatural nonsense.

`

Well, he was suggesting it might have been a space alien.

 

[Leo123]

Well, so let's take a closer look at that.

According to the timetable, earth is about 4.5 billion years old. And, the first prokaryotic cells (mycoplasma, which is about the simplest cell we know of - it's basically a bacterium minus the cell wall) are somewhere around 4 billion years. So that leaves half a billion years for a primitive cell to form.

Mycoplasma has DNA, it's a single circular strand - which means, it requires tRNA. Transfer RNA can be considered an enzyme, but it's a small one, its chain length is only about 75 nucleotides. So let's be generous and use round numbers and say it requires 250 DNA base pairs to code for it, per type. Times 20 types, so about 5000 base pairs in total.

Mycoplasma also has 70s ribosomes, which contain about 4500 nucleotides, so let's say 15,000 base pairs. So for the native replicating machinery we're talking 20,000 base pairs. But let's be generous and call it 25k.

Next, mycoplasma requires about 50 different proteins to function and to self replicate. The total number of base pairs in a single strand of mycoplasma DNA is about 500,000, and the average sequence length of one of its proteins is about 400 amino acids, which would equate with 1200 base pairs, times 50, so about 60,000 base pairs in total.

So what do these numbers tell us? First, they tell us that mycoplasma has more DNA than it needs. By at least a factor of 5. What does the rest of the DNA do? No one really knows. But J Craig Venter and his colleagues in San Diego showed us that you can remove the excess and still have a fully functional self replicating mycoplasma. So the excess DNA is apparently "not necessary".

So here are two questions:

First, how long does it take to "evolve" a single strand of 500k DNA base pairs?

And second, if there is such an evolution, what are the chances of obtaining a working ribosome?

The first question is pretty easy to answer. Nucleotides can be synthesized directly and abiotically from acetaldehyde and glyceraldehyde-5-phosphate, the reaction takes about a day in a seawater solution at room temperature (the reaction is pH and temperature dependent, but the point is the raw material for DNA is very easy to come by). Then, once we have a supply of nucleotides we have to chain them together, and this is where we get our first glimpse of real evolution. Because nucleotide bonds form randomly but they are unstable, they break almost as fast as they make. To get something stable requires "nucleation", which means you need 4 or more base pairs in a row before water will stabilize the chain.

It turns out that this process is a lot easier to accomplish if you have RNA "first", which also means you have to have proteins "first". This is the origin of the RNA-world hypothesis. It says that instead of synthesizing the DNA abiotically, you do it from existing RNA. Which requires an enzyme called a polymerase, which is a protein. So before we can do this calculation, we need to do a similar calculation for proteins.

Scientists have done all these calculations. The short story is that half a billion years is a LONG time, you don't need nearly that much. You only need about 1/100 as much to get a full strand of 500,000 base pairs of DNA. And, this doesn't happen in just "one" micelle, it happens in billions upon billions of micelles simultaneously. Each one will have a slightly different result. So your chances overall, are the chances for one micelle, multiplied by a factor of a billion or more. The resulting answer is, it's not only possible, it's "very likely".

Which takes us immediately to the second question. If you have billions and billions of "tries", what are the chances that at least one of them will result in a working ribosome? The answer is, you get a huge advantage from the redundancy. If you stipulate that oceans cover half the earth, that gives you about 250 million square kilometers, so if you have one micelle per square meter you have a redundancy of about 250 trillion. Even without working through the detailed math you can see that the answer is once again "very likely". You have 250 trillion examples building at 1 extension per day and you only require 60,000. The odds are practically overwhelming, they approach 1.

We can now take this further by considering that the "failed" protein sequences can be reused for something else. Even if a protein fails as a polymerase, maybe it will succeed in moving phosphates around or linking glycine subunits or something. The picture that emerges is a vast collection of micelles with heterogeneous contents.

And now you have half a billion years to mix and match. Many of the micelles will get torn up on the rocks, where they will dump their contents back into the water. And where the loose protein will then be incorporated into other micelles by endocytosis.

The first gap in the evolutionary timeline is between cell stability and self replication, and now we see it isn't that much of a gap after all. A short time with this mix-and-match process will give you all kinds of synthase and reductase enzymes, only a few of which are actually required. The exchange of raw materials functions very much like a virus, it carries proteins and genetic information from one cell to another.

So the initial set of questions reduces to an issue of "how are the useful sequences kept around". Apparently a lot more is kept around than needs to be, because we have 5x as much DNA as we need.

If you actually think through this stuff you end up having to conclude it's eminently plausible. It doesn't require design, it just requires lots and lots of trial and error. Half a billion years worth.

Your explanation depends on already made molecules. So, how did those molecules form? Where did they come from? Better yet, WHY did they form? What animates this process and why? Beyond all that, why would there be billions of 'tries?' What is that force and where did it come from?

A polymerase is an an enzyme.that synthesizes chains of polymers. You need to first explain why this enzyme does what it does and where it came from.

I accept your knowledge of evolution of existing life forms however, so far, you have not put forth a good explanation of the origin of all these molecules that have directed actions that help create a living cell. Who or what created the template or program? No one yet knows. There seems to be some force orchestrating elements to form these basic components. You can say it took billions and billions of years of trial and error but, why would those elements even try? There MUST be an animating factor.