Evolution question.

[Dogmaphobe]

and now for our musical interlude

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't get caught up in the minutia, I reject the whole thing out of hand.

Exactly! Thank you for the moment of honesty.

You reject it a priori, because of a belief you already hold.

Not on argument, and not on evidence. On belief.

 

[zaangalewa]

I guess most people here do not understand the difference between creation and evolution. Only what is created is able to evolve. Not to forget: Time on its own is "only" creation and not evolution. One day time started - "before" was no time. And also many other things ever had been and never evolved. Extremly simple example: 1+1=2 was a since ever a "law" - a long time before any human being was able to write down such a law. Sometimes I call mathematics (a subject of culture and civilisation) the "spirituality of physics". I guess such an expression makes very clear what's the real problem in such discussions: What are we able to know and to say at all without creation and evolution - specially without cultural evolution? Outside of this parameters is for our thoughts no place to stand - there is not even an outside of the universe. It is flat (=never ending) but limited (has a beginning).

 

[scruffy]

I don't get caught up in the minutia, I reject the whole thing out of hand.

You're up against 18 converging lines of evidence, from six different scientific disciplines.

You're sure you want to go there?

This ain't exactly phrenology you know.

I think you can't see the trees because of the forest. When you look at evolution, you see species. That's why you spend so much time ragging on Darwin.

But the modern theory of evolution has nothing to do with species. It's biophysical, it seeks to explain niches rather than the particular instantiations that fit into them.

For instance, the sequence of compartmentation followed by motility followed by active sensing of the environment. Motility comes first because without motility there is no need for active sensing ("the niche doesn't exist"). But once there is motility, a niche is created for active sensing.

So, if you're looking at species, maybe you see a bacterium that hovers over food and then ingests it. Bacteria have no nervous system, all the intracellular communication is chemical in nature. So this niche requires a communication mechanism between the food sensor and the motile ingester. The ingester can be as simple as a vacuole, and in that case the organism must center the ingester over the food and then invaginate the vacuole.

This is pretty sophisticated behavior for a single celled organism, but what's underneath it turns out to be pretty simple. Protons (H+) control the membrane curvature, along with cytoplasmic proteins called BAR.

https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(08)00131-1

Enhancement of Cell Membrane Invaginations, Vesiculation and Uptake of Macromolecules by Protonation of the Cell Surface - PMC

The different pathways of endocytosis share an initial step involving local inward curvature of the cell’s lipid bilayer. It has been shown that to generate membrane curvature, proteins or lipids enforce transversal asymmetry of the plasma membrane. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Now - from the first link, these BAR proteins are: "elongated dimers formed by the antiparallel association of α-helical coiled coils".

Helical coiled coils are ordinary run of the mill proteins. Just about every useful protein is a helical coiled coil. That's because amino acid polymers tend to coil up. So, in an environment where lots of diverse proteins are being created, the statistics say you're eventually going to get one with a curved surface that can bend a membrane. It's purely combinatorics, nothing more.

Bacteria adapt (mutate) very quickly. Bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics in days on a plaque dish, take maybe 3-5 generations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is mathematically impossible for random events to have created the first cell.

 

[zaangalewa]

It is mathematically impossible for random events to have created the first cell.

What means nothing because - for example - a few decades ago and earlier a bumblebee was not able to fly. The "evolution" of our knowledge about aerodynamics was not able to explain how a bumblebee was able to fly. Fortunatelly the bumblebees never cared about since millions of years. Meanwhile they fly legally with the improved laws of aerodynamics.

By the way: Never heard "Dust we are and to dust we shall return"? Materialism and spiritualism not exclude each other. Resurrection will be in "flesh and blood" = in body and spirit (soul).

 

[Hollie]

The ToE itself is an unbroken chain of unproven assumptions.

That’s obviously false. The ToE is among the best supported, most complete theories in science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I guess most people here do not understand the difference between creation and evolution. Only what is created is able to evolve.

It's nobody's duty to understand or try to understand stuff you make up out of thin air.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is mathematically impossible for random events to have created the first cell.

Selection is not random. Problem solved.

 

[Woodznutz]

That’s obviously false. The ToE is among the best supported, most complete theories in science.

You should read some of the literature written by evolutionary scientists. The basis of the ToE is/are assumptions, largely unproven, and often not agreed upon by other scientists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You should read some of the literature written by evolutionary scientists. The basis of the ToE is/are assumptions, largely unproven, and often not agreed upon by other scientists.

Once again you lay out a bunch of unargued and unevidenced claims.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're up against 18 converging lines of evidence, from six different scientific disciplines.

You're sure you want to go there?

This ain't exactly phrenology you know.

I think you can't see the trees because of the forest. When you look at evolution, you see species. That's why you spend so much time ragging on Darwin.

But the modern theory of evolution has nothing to do with species. It's biophysical, it seeks to explain niches rather than the particular instantiations that fit into them.

For instance, the sequence of compartmentation followed by motility followed by active sensing of the environment. Motility comes first because without motility there is no need for active sensing ("the niche doesn't exist"). But once there is motility, a niche is created for active sensing.

So, if you're looking at species, maybe you see a bacterium that hovers over food and then ingests it. Bacteria have no nervous system, all the intracellular communication is chemical in nature. So this niche requires a communication mechanism between the food sensor and the motile ingester. The ingester can be as simple as a vacuole, and in that case the organism must center the ingester over the food and then invaginate the vacuole.

This is pretty sophisticated behavior for a single celled organism, but what's underneath it turns out to be pretty simple. Protons (H+) control the membrane curvature, along with cytoplasmic proteins called BAR.

https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(08)00131-1

Enhancement of Cell Membrane Invaginations, Vesiculation and Uptake of Macromolecules by Protonation of the Cell Surface - PMC

The different pathways of endocytosis share an initial step involving local inward curvature of the cell’s lipid bilayer. It has been shown that to generate membrane curvature, proteins or lipids enforce transversal asymmetry of the plasma membrane. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Now - from the first link, these BAR proteins are: "elongated dimers formed by the antiparallel association of α-helical coiled coils".

Helical coiled coils are ordinary run of the mill proteins. Just about every useful protein is a helical coiled coil. That's because amino acid polymers tend to coil up. So, in an environment where lots of diverse proteins are being created, the statistics say you're eventually going to get one with a curved surface that can bend a membrane. It's purely combinatorics, nothing more.

Bacteria adapt (mutate) very quickly. Bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics in days on a plaque dish, take maybe 3-5 generations.

Selection is not random. Problem solved.

What then is driving this non-random selection process?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What then is driving this non-random selection process?

The laws of physics

Do you think massive objects beng spheroids instead of cubes is "random"? No.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The laws of physics

Do you think massive objects beng spheroids instead of cubes is "random"? No.

NO! That would be random. You said there is a "Selection" process, who is doing the selecting? Random, inorganic molecules and proteins do not make selections

 

[Hollie]

You should read some of the literature written by evolutionary scientists. The basis of the ToE is/are assumptions, largely unproven, and often not agreed upon by other scientists.

You should read literature written by biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, oceanographers, archaeologists outside of ID’iot creation ministries. Creation ministries are stacked with people holding “degrees” from diploma mills or assume expertise in a field they have no credentials for.

You are wedded to the “assumptions “ slogan as you apply it to biological evolution but you refuse to identify those assumptions.

It’s remarkable that in the 21st century we still have science deniers and the denials are driven by hacks at the Disco’tute, Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research, etc.

 

[Woodznutz]

Once again you lay out a bunch of unargued and unevidenced claims.

Are you denying that there is much disagreement in the scientific community regarding evolution?

 

[Woodznutz]

You should read literature written by biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, oceanographers, archaeologists outside of ID’iot creation ministries.

You are wedded to the “assumptions “ slogan as you apply it to biological evolution but you refuse to identify those assumptions.

It’s remarkable that in the 21st century we still have science deniers and the denials are driven by hacks at the Disco’tute, Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research, etc.

Those are the articles I'm reading. I don't read deniers literature.
I'm just pointing out that such articles are fraught with assumptions. These are weak, or nonexistent, necessary links in a chain of evolutionary changes. You must know this as well. Evolution is 'unsettled' science at best.

 

[Hollie]

Those are the articles I'm reading. I don't read deniers literature.

Yet, you refuse to identify the “assumptions” you insist are misleading the relevant science community.

Harun Yahya is not a scientist. You knew that, right?
.

 

[Hollie]

Are you denying that there is much disagreement in the scientific community regarding evolution?

Are you denying the validity of Hindu creationism? Your religion is based upon assumptions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

NO! That would be random

False. If it is random, why aren't there cubical planets?

It is most assuredly not random. The laws of physics are the same everywhere

You said there is a "Selection" process, who is doing the selecting?

The laws of physics.

Same, correct answer as the 20 other times you asked the EXACT SAME QUESTION.