Blowing Up Darwin

[meaner gene]

How have viruses evolved over time?

Evolution of viruses (article) | Khan Academy
Viruses undergo evolution and natural selection, just like cell-based life, and most of them evolve rapidly. When two viruses infect a cell at the same time, they may swap genetic material to make new, "mixed" viruses with unique properties. For example, flu strains can arise this way.

 

[abu afak]

Evolution, you dolt, is one species changing into another.

Yes but it starts gradually with one Species getting Subspecies first.. Not instant transformation. (intermediates/fossils predicted only by Evo, and later found. ie, a long gradual chain from ape to human)

And you are a Creationist Religious Nut/Ho and do Not believe in Science/'Species' IAC, you believe in 'Kinds'/look alikes.
ie, Chimps and Gorillas each have Two Different Species (and more subspecies/races). Etc, etc.

And speaking of height not being genetic...
Height in many cases was also genetic/evolution.
The First humans were bushmen/pygmies/Hadsa due to food supply/ability to get it.
This is not a matter of more calories, its evolution. Subspecies bordering on Species.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

There was no matter in the universe prior to the big bang.


Before the hot Big Bang occurred, our Universe was expanding at an enormous and relentless rate. Instead of being dominated by matter and radiation, our cosmos was dominated by the field energy of inflation: just like today's dark energy, but many orders of magnitude greater in strength and expansion speed.Jul 27, 2023

Our Universe wasn't empty, even before the Big Bang​

View attachment 1050941
Big Think
https://bigthink.com › starts-with-a-bang › universe-was...

The Singularity Before the Postclassical Quacks' Big Bang Was an Impossible Concentration

There was no universe here before the Big Bang. The eruption from an existing universe created space (which is a substance) for itself. The eruption from a third universe created intelligence, which created not only life, but the ability to adapt to or change its own environment. Lack of adaptation or lack of mental ability to change its surroundings created death.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Wrong

You understand nothing of marx. They were not interested in the poor but in ruling the world.

he never proposed communal loving or cooperation but demanded universal slavery

There are many examples of marxism

Preppy Progressives

Marx's secret appeal was to those who believed they were born to rule, based on being born in the plutocracy. This is typical of what has always happened at his universities, which are totally biased in favor of those who live off a healthy allowance from their Daddies.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Did you ever look at a drop of pond water in the microscope? Lots of tiny little predators in there!

Pond Scum

You can get the same scenario if you look at the ghetto from Google Earth

 

[Leo123]

"Alive" at that level just means they sustain themselves, and eventually self replicate.

Most (all?) cellular life on earth uses DNA at this point, however viruses and other "very simple" life forms can use RNA.

The simplest form of replication in cells is binary fission, which means the genetic material is duplicated and then the cell membrane splits in two. This is a pretty simple process in prokaryotes, they have a single circular chromosome, the strands pull to opposite ends and then the membrane pinches in the middle. It looks like this:

View attachment 1051030

Replication only requires a single enzyme called a polymerase, although it also needs a "primer" which is usually a small piece of RNA (so technically there might be a second enzyme to synthesize it, called a primase). It's the pulling apart that's harder and somewhat more complex. After uncoiling and replication the old and new DNA are pulled to opposite poles of the cell. Instead of the microtubules used in eukaryotic asters, these simple bacteria use a protein called FtsZ, which looks like this:

View attachment 1051031

It may look complicated, but it's really not, it has lots of repeating subunits. Anyway, it self assembles into a ring and pulls apart the coils of DNA. Then, the membrane contracts and closes, and then you have two identical cells. (There is no recombination in this process, the two strands of DNA are identical).

All together there are maybe half a dozen proteins in the whole process, which have to be encoded in the DNA. So to get from an RNA micelle to here is a pretty big step, it requires decades or maybe centuries of evolution. They have AI working on the evolutionary sequence even as we speak, the requirement being that simple forms of replication are maintained during the evolution.

The splitting of the membrane occurs when the FtsZ filaments tighten and ratchet against each other, much like the tubulin in our microtubules. This just happens when they run out of DNA to pull, the switchover is automatic

In eukaryotic cells this process becomes very complicated, involving asters and a spindle to line up and then separate the chromosome copies. But this simpler bacterial mechanism is used in chloroplasts and mitochondria too (except that our mitochondria use dynamin instead of FtsZ).

So, cell replication for even the simplest cell is non-trivial. Here's the thing though: cells don't "have to" replicate. They're perfectly happy living forever just as they are. However they tend to get eaten by bigger cells, which is one reason why they reproduce.

In a nutshell: sustainability is easy, replication is harder. If a cell has to replicate it needs to encoded at least half a dozen proteins in its DNA. It can do this over decades to centuries, by ingesting lots of small molecules and making bigger molecules out of them. The mechanism is currently being investigated.

Yes, the workings of a living cell are well known however, it does not explain how it’s elements are animated and most of all, how primordial soup created these workings. There is no experiment that has created what you describe. You are explaining cell actions AFTER the fact.

 

[abu afak]

Cat got your tongue on several posts?
Again:

That was my point. It's impossible to create life. People who say it is possible have never seen the inner workings of just one cell. We know a lot about HOW chemicals react but we really don't know why.

And how do you know that?
It was "impossible" for man to fly just over a century ago after many failed tries over decades/centuries... until they succeeded.
"We don't know that... yet" is the only HONEST answer.
The vast majority of gods (Tens of thousands) have lapsed after we found out why/how.

One thing we do know for certain is that man created gods. Lots of them. Most way gone.
We also DO know at least 75% of the planet's Religions are wrong even if one is right.

Is it more possible to POOF a god/omnipotent being into existence or a cell that had a few billion years and an infinite amount of chances/conditions to combine from pre-existing elements?

`

 

[scruffy]

Totally agree with all of the above, except that the circle analogy seems flawed. I take issue with a couple of things after that.

That is an inaccurate description which seems to be meant to imply something that is not true. The population is in the petri dish, same as the previous generations, so it is not in a different place. I believe that you used that phraseology to imply something more than that "The population average is different," which is more accurate.

Yes, you're right. I meant different place in the phase space.

If you mean a different place on the circle, or that the circle is in a different place, I think that points to the flaw in the circle you envision. A bar graph would be more accurate with one bar representing non-resistant, and another bar representing resistant. Or perhaps multiple bars each representing a different level of resistance.

Before the introduction, the bars might be of equal height, for example, but after, the "resistant" bar would be much higher than the non-resistant bar. The non-resistant bar may disappear altogether - but only from that petri dish.

Good analogy.

Could you explain what you mean by "stochastic?" Because "guided" and "stochastic" are nearly antonyms, yet you say one is fancier language for the other.

"Guided" is vernacular, it essentially means you put walls in certain places, so if the random walk goes in that direction it bounces off the wall and goes in a different direction. Which is not entirely accurate either, but the idea is it closes off that part of the phase space.

My point is that you are not the first to defend Darwinism by attributing apparent motivation to the theorized influence most often called "natural selection." The phrase itself implies some intelligence making choices. Richard Dawkins wrote about genes being "selfish."

"Natural" selection means natural forces. Laws of physics, laws of nature. Like, if an organism can't eat it can't survive. Biologists call the attractors "niches", it just means conditions favorable to the organism or the population.

Select is a verb. If something is selecting, it is not random or "stochastic," in fancier language.

Stochastic doesn't necessarily mean a flat distribution. Most of the distributions are Gaussians or sums or products of Gaussians. Some distributions are "skewed", meaning the mean isn't in the middle. The word stochastic is usually used in the context of a Markov process, which just means a walk without memory.

Sorry i was loose with the language, i try to convey the concepts for the layman.

 

[scruffy]

Yes, the workings of a living cell are well known however, it does not explain how it’s elements are animated and most of all, how primordial soup created these workings. There is no experiment that has created what you describe. You are explaining cell actions AFTER the fact.

Hey, you have to give us 5;or 10 more years. After all, it took nature 4 billion.

 

[alang1216]

The old saying is we judge others by ourselves….for that reason I am always surprised to find worms like you who have no compunction about lying.

Case in point, this lie you authored about me:

Did you write this?
"So you don't like doctors or Blacks."

Of course you did .....and I proved you could find no such quote.

Much To Our Chagrin.... post 35

Do you find it necessary to use nose clips to allow you to live with yourself?

I'm honored you kept such good track of my writings that you can go back almost 2 years to dredge one up.

Alas for you, I showed you it was no lie then and I doubt anything has changed since.

 

[Leo123]

Hey, you have to give us 5;or 10 more years. After all, it took nature 4 billion.

How did 'nature' do this and why can't it be replicated today? There must be billions of ponds on Earth today yet, no new life is ever created. Perhaps the primordial pond explanation is lacking? Life (the self creation of animate, self replicating organisms) seems to require an element we know nothing about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How have viruses evolved over time?

Evolution of viruses (article) | Khan Academy
Viruses undergo evolution and natural selection, just like cell-based life, and most of them evolve rapidly. When two viruses infect a cell at the same time, they may swap genetic material to make new, "mixed" viruses with unique properties. For example, flu strains can arise this way.

Viruses are not living things, you moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Kinda vague there. I noted there can be minor mutations but in the end you still have a moth.

No, you don't.

If you make enough small changes over time, what you end up with will be something else.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We have moths from prehistoric times. They like now are just moths.

What were they, before they were moths?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No entirely new cell or bactria is created, they just keep on reproducing as they were designed to do millions of years ago.

100% wrong of course. This is precisely how new species of microbes can be are created.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That adaption, you dunce, not evolution.

Mutations have NOTHING to do with success in an environment.

Wrong again.

See? You couldn't pass a 6th grade science quiz and for sure know less than nothing about this topic.

 

[pknopp]

No, you don't.

If you make enough small changes over time, what you end up with will be something else.

If you want to reply, please at least say something.

 

[pknopp]

What were they, before they were moths?

Moths.

 

[scruffy]

How did 'nature' do this and why can't it be replicated today? There must be billions of ponds on Earth today yet, no new life is ever created.

How do you know that?

You can't know that, there's no way you could tell.

How would you tell?

Perhaps the primordial pond explanation is lacking? Life (the self creation of animate, self replicating organisms) seems to require an element we know nothing about.

There's lots of elements we know nothing about.

I just pointed out one of them in the previous post.

It's called a theory for a reason. Otherwise it would be called a fact.

Just because there's missing information doesn't mean the theory is wrong. It just means there's missing information.

View attachment 1051254

Turns out there's lots of molecules that perform the exact same function as FtsZ. I mentioned two of them in the previous post. There are dozens more. Exact sequence doesn't matter, function is what matters. That's part of the beauty of the theory. There are many paths to the same result. One looks at the things that are conserved. That tells us what's important. Eyes are conserved, but retinas are all over the place. Oculomotor muscles are conserved, but gaze is all over the place. Chromosome segregation is conserved, but the molecules that do it are all over the place. Structural support in cells is highly conserved, but the exact nature of the cytoskeleton varies widely. These observations are important. There is no perfect engineering solution, nature tries different things and some of it works and some of it doesn't. If man were meant to fly we would have had wings, right?