Evolution question.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's my argument. Stuff has the appearance of being specially designed.

It is not an argument. That's a statement. Now you must argue the truth of it.

 

[scruffy]

I don't recall physics being included until now.

Sigh.

All life is physics. Didn't you know that?

Surely you didn't think life was immune from the laws of physics?

Life is the most sophisticated physics there is, that's why no one understands it.

I think you should be asking a different question.

What is "I"?

"I" think, therefore "I" am.

How do you get an analog self out of the laws of physics?

Think about it. "Will" is selected for. Any organism that is proactive instead of reactive has a significant evolutionary advantage - AS LONG AS the goals align with evolutionary success. Food, sex, all that stuff aligns with evolutionary success. Tik Tok? Not so much.

 

[Woodznutz]

Sigh.

All life is physics. Didn't you know that?

Surely you didn't think life was immune from the laws of physics?

Life is the most sophisticated physics there is, that's why no one understands it.

I think you should be asking a different question.

What is "I"?

"I" think, therefore "I" am.

How do you get an analog self out of the laws of physics?

Think about it. "Will" is selected for. Any organism that is proactive instead of reactive has a significant evolutionary advantage - AS LONG AS the goals align with evolutionary success. Food, sex, all that stuff aligns with evolutionary success. Tik Tok? Not so much.

Godly magic I understand. Manmade not so much.

 

[scruffy]

Godly magic I understand.

I don't think so.

Do you know how proteins are made from DNA? Transcription and translation and all that stuff?

So then, you know what a ribosome is - well look here, this is a ribosome in action:

PubMed Central Image Viewer.

Manmade not so much.

The tRNA is interesting. The latest theory is the two halves evolved separately, for different reasons. That happens a lot in combinatorics, the joining of subunits is basically the inverse of a dust, and the dynamics of these joinings determine the range of shapes one sees during the evolution of the reaction (like BZ for example - in the earlier pic, the "shape" that looks like a bacterial plaque is a particular kind of fractal that can be related to a particular set of stochastic generators, in other words the math is similar no matter the instantiation).

These "shapes" are available inside the cell as well, based on the biophysics. For example, if you think about the shape of the Golgi apparatus or endoplasmic reticulum, where you have a stack of folded membranes oriented in one direction, that particular shape results from the interaction of two chemical gradients with the boundary conditions imposed by the outer cell membrane (like, charge separation and etc).

So you have complexity on many levels, there is sequence complexity, folding complexity, shape complexity... life uses them all.

The ribosome is a pretty complex piece of work. There is no agreement as to how it came into being. One of the interesting things about the mechanism is, an 850 kD subunit moves by thermal energy alone. That's pretty d*mn impressive. Life is able to set up the energy in such a way that this huge protein changes position "because it wants to".

 

[zaangalewa]

What's missing is people don't understand the roll of DNA in the cell when the DNA molecule is NOT changing ... without mutations ... without evolutionary differences ... once this is understood, then the atom-by-atom description of evolutionary change is immediately apparent ... a corollary to normal DNA functions in that it doesn't need further proofs ... if you don't know exactly what mRNA or NADH does, then you shouldn't be discussing evolution ... you won't understand until you've taken a few college biochemistry courses ...

The secret is enzymes ... and time ... both of which we have in abundance ...

Sure we may discuss evolution - but always in the awareness what we know and what we do not know and what are perhaps also mistakes. Science errs upwards direction truth. It needs many many many steps before a new Einstein is able to show a totally new perspective on known facts.

I was by the way short time ago damned angry when Darwin was called a genius while Humboldt was called a stupid ignorant in the same "scientific" article. Humboldt was a fascinating person who inspired the whole world. Darwin was a nitpicker compared with this noble citizen of the world and excellent philosopher and scientist.
The reality is that we know nearly everything about evolution since thousands of years - when we found out what nature is doing and started farming and livestock breeding. To do so we learned from nature. Indeed I guess we learned from the dogs (our first comrades from another species who had been hunters like we) how evolution works. The hunters and gatherers - as well as Darwin - knew by the way indeed nothing about genetics.

Genetics is the very mighty key we all should use very very very carefully. Genes which escape from laboratories are able to have extemely drastic consequences - for example when virusses transport them into other lifeforms. Indeed I am often shocked when "scientists" play like little children with things they do not really understand. The most important thing in natural science is to understand what we are doing on what reasons and how to keep control.

 

[zaangalewa]

Do you know how proteins are made from DNA? Transcription and translation and all that stuff?

And now? How "create" proteins spirit if someone is not Arnold Schwarzenegger?



Nichts ist schwerer zu ertragen als eine Reihe von guten Tagen.
Nothing is harder to bear than a series of good days.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

[Hollie]

There is not a single biological organism found in the fossil record or in living organisms that exhibits any need for change.

Well, obviously there are biological organisms in the fossil record. The “need” for change is not a function of biology. Change in biological organisms is driven by environmental pressures and DNA.

The history of the fossil record is one of change, speciation, driven by the elements above.

 

[Hollie]

I'll post it for you.

"The curvature of the earth is basically irrelevant to the activities of man."

Just as science is basically irrelevant to the societal problems of man, except in a negative way.

Science is fully relevant to the societal problems of man. Cures for disease is a direct result of science.

 

[zaangalewa]

This is of course hilariously false.

?

We know plenty.

Or nearly nothing - what's the same when we don't know what we don't know.

We understand what the precursors were

Eh? Which precursors of what? What do you understand? Why for example exist multi-cellular life forms on planet Earth since only about 500-600 million years? Why not 4 billion years before (with some very few irrelevant exceptions billions of years ago which had died out)

s-and we understand their environment. We understand chemistry and the laws of physics. Maybe you are just ignorant of all of it and need to read up...?

How do you solve the puzzle to make a 70 kg human being when you have 70 kg different elements in the correct relation?

 

[zaangalewa]

Well, obviously there are biological organisms in the fossil record. The “need” for change is not a function of biology. Change in biological organisms is driven by environmental pressures and DNA.

The history of the fossil record is one of change, speciation, driven by the elements above.

First of all means "change" in the evolution "Descendents or not descendents; this is the question" - how William Changepear said. Second exist such changes of the biosphere only in micro-mutations: DNA is changed randomly without any concrete intention - but can also be changed intentionally. The normal mix of DNA creates only variations of the old schemes of a species. Third: Only if this changes "fit" to a "niche" a living structure is able to survive. But also a niche is able to change on many different reasons. No guarantee for the descendents of any species to be able to survive.

 

[zaangalewa]

Science is fully relevant to the societal problems of man. ...

Can you tell me why the three-body problem in physics is more relevant than to play baseball? Everything what human beings are doing is relevant for us, isn't it?

 

[Woodznutz]

Well, obviously there are biological organisms in the fossil record. The “need” for change is not a function of biology. Change in biological organisms is driven by environmental pressures and DNA.

The history of the fossil record is one of change, speciation, driven by the elements above.

The most notable change in the fossil record is the sudden destruction of their environment along with all the species.

 

[Hollie]

The most notable change in the fossil record is the sudden destruction of their environment along with all the species.

There was no sudden destruction of all species.

 

[Woodznutz]

Science is fully relevant to the societal problems of man. Cures for disease is a direct result of science.

Curing the diseases of society is easy, preventing them, not so much. Science has taken the easy (and very profitable) path. There's also a rich harvest in the side effects of their curative medications.

What I really meant was the social problems of society, like crime, violence, poverty, hunger, etc.

 

[Woodznutz]

There was no sudden destruction of all species.

You can run from the "Cambrian Explosion" (and other questions), but you can't hide.

Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution | Evolution News

The origin of whales has been called a “poster child for macroevolution.”…

evolutionnews.org

 

[Hollie]

You can run from the "Cambrian Explosion" (and other questions), but you can't hide.

Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution | Evolution News

The origin of whales has been called a “poster child for macroevolution.”…

evolutionnews.org

This is the problem you face. You're wedded to nonsense from ID'iot creationer websites. Evolution news is affiliated with hacks at the Disco'tute.

The bottom line is that the entirety of what oozes from ID'iot creationer'ism amounts to desperate attempts to tear down science. There are no positive assertions made by creationer hacks.

Why don't you link to peer reviewed papers coming out of the Disco'tute where they make a positive case for supernatural creation?

Claims are meaningless without reliable evidence as a basis for those claims. Evidence for supernatural design is lacking. Claims that merely denigrate science and offer no positive case for supernaturalism are just noise. Claims by the Disco'tute have been repeatedly examined and dismissed by those who understand evolutionary biology.

 

[ReinyDays]

There was no sudden destruction of all species.

The Oxygen Crisis ≈ 2.2 Bya ... perhaps only one species of blue-green algae survived ... everything else died when oxygen started to accumulate in the biosphere ... all we can say for sure about the first half of Earth's existence is there were no respirators ... except for the above mentioned single species of blue-green algae (i.e. cyanobacteria) ...

Good thing the structure of the DNA molecule immediately proves evolutionary change ... just need time, a gynormous computer and a dedicated AI to work the problem backwards ... atom by atom ...

Folks lock into Darwin because he was wrong ... really only Wallace's contributions to The Origin of Species endured into the 20th Century ... when Darwinism was superseded by the Modern Synthesis ... then Pauling's Alpha Helix and quickly followed by DNA's double helix ...

Nobel Prizes galore ... only an alchemist would disagree ... ewwwwwwwwwwwwww ...

 

[Hollie]

The Oxygen Crisis ≈ 2.2 Bya ... perhaps only one species of blue-green algae survived ... everything else died when oxygen started to accumulate in the biosphere ... all we can say for sure about the first half of Earth's existence is there were no respirators ... except for the above mentioned single species of blue-green algae (i.e. cyanobacteria) ...

Good thing the structure of the DNA molecule immediately proves evolutionary change ... just need time, a gynormous computer and a dedicated AI to work the problem backwards ... atom by atom ...

Folks lock into Darwin because he was wrong ... really only Wallace's contributions to The Origin of Species endured into the 20th Century ... when Darwinism was superseded by the Modern Synthesis ... then Pauling's Alpha Helix and quickly followed by DNA's double helix ...

Nobel Prizes galore ... only an alchemist would disagree ... ewwwwwwwwwwwwww ...

I think you're exactly right about Wallace contributing much (and uncredited for) what Darwin published. The core precepts of Darwinian evolution have survived. I suppose it's a bit like Newton's gravitation has been revised and better defined by Albert Einstein.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The most notable change in the fossil record is the sudden destruction of their environment along with all the species.

Not all. Else you wouldn't be reading this.

And there have been several mass extinctions.

 

[Woodznutz]

This is the problem you face. You're wedded to nonsense from ID'iot creationer websites. Evolution news is affiliated with hacks at the Disco'tute.

The bottom line is that the entirety of what oozes from ID'iot creationer'ism amounts to desperate attempts to tear down science. There are no positive assertions made by creationer hacks.

Why don't you link to peer reviewed papers coming out of the Disco'tute where they make a positive case for supernatural creation?

Claims are meaningless without reliable evidence as a basis for those claims. Evidence for supernatural design is lacking. Claims that merely denigrate science and offer no positive case for supernaturalism are just noise. Claims by the Disco'tute have been repeatedly examined and dismissed by those who understand evolutionary biology.

Why does it follow that rejection of evolution demands belief in creationism? I don't think that scientists that question some of the tenets of evolution make a bee line for the nearest church.