Original Science

[BackAgain]

“You are on my Ignore List for good cause.”

Yet, here you are replying. You’re easily confused, right?

I have about a dozen or more folks on my ignore list. I have periodically removed some of them from my ignore list — for one misbegotten reason or another. So, I sometimes see their posts after banishing them to the phantom zone.

Also, the Board programming allows us to selectively choose to view an ignored member’s posts if we get curious for some reason.

Now back on topic. Or not. The topic and the arguments are all flying largely over my head. But I’ll take a small stab at it.

Natural selection boils down to the proposition that some genetic differences (mutations) occur which provide some benefit to an organism or animal (or plant for that matter). It increases the ability of that organism to survive and reproduce. The non-mutated organisms don’t have the particular benefit, so their chances of survival and reproduction are not as good.

Eventually the mutated variety is the only one that survives over the generations.

I’m not sure why this notion is considered either confusing or worthy of much dispute. But I’m not a scientist. So, in layman’s terms what exactly is the basis for the controversy?

 

[Mushroom]

You should expand the scope of your inquiry beyond The Tonight Show. Here is a quote of Sagan on Cosmos: "A galaxy is composed of gas and dust and stars - billions upon billions of stars. Every star may be a sun to some one." He also wrote a book entitled Billions & Billions published in 1997.

Which is actually true. Some have even more than the "billions and billions", as the Andromeda Galaxy has over 1 trillion stars. And by current estimates, the Milky Way Galaxy has over 300 billion stars.

So funny, you are trying to prove him wrong, and are simply confirming he was correct. What, did you not even know that there were that many stars in the Milky Way?

The claim that Johnny Caron used when he was satirizing him was that there were "billions and billions of galaxies", Which at the time was actually far beyond what anybody could even believe. However, thanks to more recent advances like the Hubble Deep Fiels and James Webb, that has increased to around 125 billion galaxies. So even then, it is entirely correct.

I also discussed his book already, he picked the title as tongue and cheek to the famous misappropriated quote from a satire skit.

 

[Mushroom]

I saw Sagan many times on commercial television.

Yes, generally being interviewed.

However, his most famous televised work was "Cosmos", and that was on PBS. A non-commercial network.

I myself have an ambivalent opinion of Dr. Sagan. However, I even remember he was one of the key members of the TTAPS Team (Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) that created the theory of "Nuclear Winter", he was pushing it heavily prior to the 1990 Gulf War as he claimed that if even 300-500 of the wells were destroyed as Saddam had threatened, it would create a catastrophic Nuclear Winter effect across much of the planet.

And Saddam then did exactly as he promised, and blew up over 600 oil wells, many taking a year to put out. And there was no "Nuclear Winter", the effect of those on the climate was negligible. And to give him credit, he then backpaddled on the entire "Nuclear Winter" theory, and considered that real world event proved it was not real. It is rare that one sees scientists turning their back upon their own theories, and publicly admitting that they were based upon modeling that was proven completely false in the real world.

Is a shame that more are not able to do that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are on my Ignore List for good cause. Out of mere curiosity, I wondered what you might POSSIBLY refute in my post, and naturally, you did not disappoint.

The errors in your discussion are these:

1. Natural selection (sic) ONLY operates on mutations, which are necessarily random.
So chance indeed drives the selection by preceding the Magic of *Selection*.
2. The "long period of time" does not change statistics. Whether you flip a coin every second or every 100,000 years, it's 50/50 heads to tails. Whether a random mutation *selects* threonine, tryptophan, or isoleucine today or in 500,000 years, it's 1 chance in 20 the "right" amino acid will be the product of the mutation so that it may be *selected*.
3. Then there is the nature of the chemical bond, which must be a peptide bond, with a 50/50 chance versus a non-peptide bond.
4. After that Magic Mutation, the product has to be folded correctly. What are the odds?
5. Humans have 20,000 + proteins, so do that math, slowly, quickly, it does not matter.
It's impossible any way you pretend to compute "A>B>C>D".

Mutations are random, but the mutations that survive and breed, are not.
Take the coronavirus, it's mutating but only a few of those mutations are surviving. If you have a mutation which doesn't allow it to be successful, then the successful ones will breed while the unsuccessful ones won't.
With humans and other animals, there's also sexual preference (not about which gender they choose), they'll go after the ones they think have the best genes.

 

[Mushroom]

Mutations are random, but the mutations that survive and breed, are not.

Actually, they are. Now those most beneficial to a species are more likely to survive and breed, but that is not guaranteed. Otherwise, humans and all other species would not have so many detrimental genes in our chromosomes.

Also, mutations that may be an advantage in some situations, are disadvantageous in another.

Being tall and long limbed in a savannah is an advantage, not so much in a dense jungle. And the inverse, being small in dense forests is an advantage over being tall.

A high body fat content is an advantage if one lives in a cold sub-arctic climate, not when one lives in a hot tropical climate.

Just because a mutation happens, that does not mean it is either good or bad for a species. Most are actually benign and have little to no effect. Like say hair color. There is really no advantage to hair color in any human, other than possibly as a sexual attractant not unlike some feathers in birds. And most take a great many generations to even be realized they can be helpful. But many can have a good and bad effect.

Like the Sickle Cell. Which primarily occurs in those most closely related to Africa. And that can also cause a blood disorder known as "Sickle Cell Anemia" among others. Yet, the reason why that mutation survived is because the cell is also a natural defense against Malaria. Which is an important mutation, if one lives in a region of the world where malaria is common.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually, they are. Now those most beneficial to a species are more likely to survive and breed, but that is not guaranteed. Otherwise, humans and all other species would not have so many detrimental genes in our chromosomes.

No, it isn't guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that a mutation that causes a negative reaction, will almost certainly die out. What survives will be based on what works.
HOWEVER, something that is interesting is that VIRUSES might be the spreader of changes. Take the coronavirus, it's changing humans, children born after the coronavirus might be getting additional information from bats, positive or negative? It's also spreading information from humans. So one coronavirus strain went through HIV/AIDS patients in southern Africa, what will the impact be?

 

[Mushroom]

Take the coronavirus, it's changing humans, children born after the coronavirus might be getting additional information from bats, positive or negative?

We do not actually get "DNA from bats", that is not how a virus works. Yes, we do have "fossilized remnants" from virus in our DNA, but as a virus can not replicate on its own, it is only part of a genetic code and simply relies upon other cells to replicate. They do not actually "carry" the DNA of another species with them.

What does carry however is the ability of the virus to replicate in a new host. This is how "cross-species Virus" work. For example, H1N1 started as originally a virus in swine. It then mutated into a species that could infect both swine and humans. And now commonly moves back and forth between species.

HIV is another interesting one. We know it is a mutation of SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which acts in a similar way to HIV in humans, but in monkeys (and is often called "Simian AIDS"). However, humans can not catch SIV. However, it is believed that that mutated through poorly cooked monkey meat, and mutated into HIV. Which inversely, only a single species of ape can "catch". Chimps being the closest species to humans can contract the HIV virus, but they suffer no ill effects from it and are asymptomatic carriers. Their DNA is close enough to become a host of the virus, but not to become sick by it.

And we also now know of other interesting virus. Most know Ebola is deadly fatal to humans. Yet, Ebola Reston interestingly enough can infect humans but we are asymptomatic carriers of it. And it also appears that canines can also catch that disease and are also carriers but do not become sick by it.

There is no DNA transfer from a virus to the host, that is not at all how it works. The virus is the one that mutates, not the host creature. The closest is that the human immune system will adapt to fight one off. But that is what immune systems do, they are essentially predisposed to mutate when exposed to a new pathogen. And that exposure is generally passed down to offspring.

Interestingly, we are now learning more and more about this. As the "annual flu" did not really exist prior to WWI. And almost all of them are variants of the H1N1 family. But there are other subtypes, like H1N2 (bird flu), H3N1 (pigs), H3N2 (birds, pigs, humans), and more. And the human system has become very good at fighting off flue virus. Epidemics of H1N1 (1918), H2N2 (1957), and H3N2 (1967) have allowed the survivors to pass along at least some immunity to their offspring. Which is now believed to be why later outbreaks of H1N1 were nowhere near as devastating as they were in 1918.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We do not actually get "DNA from bats", that is not how a virus works. Yes, we do have "fossilized remnants" from virus in our DNA, but as a virus can not replicate on its own, it is only part of a genetic code and simply relies upon other cells to replicate. They do not actually "carry" the DNA of another species with them.

What does carry however is the ability of the virus to replicate in a new host. This is how "cross-species Virus" work. For example, H1N1 started as originally a virus in swine. It then mutated into a species that could infect both swine and humans. And now commonly moves back and forth between species.

HIV is another interesting one. We know it is a mutation of SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which acts in a similar way to HIV in humans, but in monkeys (and is often called "Simian AIDS"). However, humans can not catch SIV. However, it is believed that that mutated through poorly cooked monkey meat, and mutated into HIV. Which inversely, only a single species of ape can "catch". Chimps being the closest species to humans can contract the HIV virus, but they suffer no ill effects from it and are asymptomatic carriers. Their DNA is close enough to become a host of the virus, but not to become sick by it.

And we also now know of other interesting virus. Most know Ebola is deadly fatal to humans. Yet, Ebola Reston interestingly enough can infect humans but we are asymptomatic carriers of it. And it also appears that canines can also catch that disease and are also carriers but do not become sick by it.

There is no DNA transfer from a virus to the host, that is not at all how it works. The virus is the one that mutates, not the host creature. The closest is that the human immune system will adapt to fight one off. But that is what immune systems do, they are essentially predisposed to mutate when exposed to a new pathogen. And that exposure is generally passed down to offspring.

Interestingly, we are now learning more and more about this. As the "annual flu" did not really exist prior to WWI. And almost all of them are variants of the H1N1 family. But there are other subtypes, like H1N2 (bird flu), H3N1 (pigs), H3N2 (birds, pigs, humans), and more. And the human system has become very good at fighting off flue virus. Epidemics of H1N1 (1918), H2N2 (1957), and H3N2 (1967) have allowed the survivors to pass along at least some immunity to their offspring. Which is now believed to be why later outbreaks of H1N1 were nowhere near as devastating as they were in 1918.

I don't know how it works, it's more the idea I like that evolution happens because of viruses. I don't know how true it is, it's just been suggested.

 

[scruffy]

You are on my Ignore List for good cause. Out of mere curiosity, I wondered what you might POSSIBLY refute in my post, and naturally, you did not disappoint.

The errors in your discussion are these:

1. Natural selection (sic) ONLY operates on mutations, which are necessarily random.

Not really. Our human DNA allows certain parts to change and forces other parts to be conserved.

So chance indeed drives the selection by preceding the Magic of *Selection*.

Combinatorics drives the availability of new structures for long range interaction.

2. The "long period of time" does not change statistics. Whether you flip a coin every second or every 100,000 years, it's 50/50 heads to tails. Whether a random mutation *selects* threonine, tryptophan, or isoleucine today or in 500,000 years, it's 1 chance in 20 the "right" amino acid will be the product of the mutation so that it may be *selected*.

Every possible amino acid combination will form in the raw ocean, even in the ice pack at nanomolar concentrations.

There are several known and available mechanisms. Here is one of them:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210029109

3. Then there is the nature of the chemical bond, which must be a peptide bond, with a 50/50 chance versus a non-peptide bond.

There's enough bonding to go around.

4. After that Magic Mutation, the product has to be folded correctly. What are the odds?

Odds? You didn't read my input about actin. Actin requires a specific enzyme to fold correctly.

5. Humans have 20,000 + proteins, so do that math, slowly, quickly, it does not matter.
It's impossible any way you pretend to compute "A>B>C>D".

Nothing is "impossible". About 42% of the free amino acid in the ocean is glycine. Which also happens to be ubiquitous in life, it even ends up being a neurotransmitter. Amino acid esters are pretty reactive, glycine can change into a lot of other things.

To understand the importance of inorganic matter you could look for example at chlorophyll and its relatives, all of which depend on the chlorin-magnesium ligand. The symmetry around the magnesium ion should be rather obvious. Chlorophylls are derived from glutamate, another ubiquitous biomolecule.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I have about a dozen or more folks on my ignore list. I have periodically removed some of them from my ignore list — for one misbegotten reason or another. So, I sometimes see their posts after banishing them to the phantom zone.

Also, the Board programming allows us to selectively choose to view an ignored member’s posts if we get curious for some reason.

Now back on topic. Or not. The topic and the arguments are all flying largely over my head. But I’ll take a small stab at it.

Natural selection boils down to the proposition that some genetic differences (mutations) occur which provide some benefit to an organism or animal (or plant for that matter). It increases the ability of that organism to survive and reproduce. The non-mutated organisms don’t have the particular benefit, so their chances of survival and reproduction are not as good.

Eventually the mutated variety is the only one that survives over the generations.

I’m not sure why this notion is considered either confusing or worthy of much dispute. But I’m not a scientist. So, in layman’s terms what exactly is the basis for the controversy?

THE basis for the controversy is the infinite extrapolation of adaptation.

Here is an analogy.
Athletes have continued to set new world records for running fast at various distances, and jumping farther and higher in various ways.

THEREFORE in the future, athletes will run faster than a military jet, jump over the moon, and jump from California to Hawaii before setting a new record by jumping to Japan.
Nobody believes any of these nonsense extrapolations, but tens of millions will fall on the sword for an 1850's tautology that was penned by a mediocre rich man's son who had no concept of biochemistry or its profound implications.

To pretend that a random mutation "selects" precisely which amino acid, out of 20 in our bodies, is joined to a different amino acid, again and again, 34,000 times is more nonsensical than pretending that athletes will outrun a military jet. And that's just for ONE protein out of thousands.
This nonsense should NOT be taught in schools. It is a fool's game.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

 

[ChemEngineer]

Yes, generally being interviewed.

However, his most famous televised work was "Cosmos", and that was on PBS. A non-commercial network.

I myself have an ambivalent opinion of Dr. Sagan. However, I even remember he was one of the key members of the TTAPS Team (Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) that created the theory of "Nuclear Winter", he was pushing it heavily prior to the 1990 Gulf War as he claimed that if even 300-500 of the wells were destroyed as Saddam had threatened, it would create a catastrophic Nuclear Winter effect across much of the planet.

And Saddam then did exactly as he promised, and blew up over 600 oil wells, many taking a year to put out. And there was no "Nuclear Winter", the effect of those on the climate was negligible. And to give him credit, he then backpaddled on the entire "Nuclear Winter" theory, and considered that real world event proved it was not real. It is rare that one sees scientists turning their back upon their own theories, and publicly admitting that they were based upon modeling that was proven completely false in the real world.

Is a shame that more are not able to do that.

Sagan was a hypocrite, and a liar. He promoted left-wing issues and put down Christians with his arrogant bully pulpit, the same way Neil DeGrasse Tyson and so many others do. "You can pray or you can vaccinate." - Carl Sagan in one of his books I critiqued

No Christian ever contends that you can't do both, if you so desire.
Hypocrite's memorial service was at St. John the Divine Cathedral, New York City.
I am unaware of whether a priest made any invocations, but I suspect that one or more did.

 

[alang1216]

I’m not sure why this notion is considered either confusing or worthy of much dispute. But I’m not a scientist. So, in layman’s terms what exactly is the basis for the controversy?

Genesis.

 

[scruffy]

To pretend that a random mutation "selects" precisely which amino acid, out of 20 in our bodies, is joined to a different amino acid, again and again, 34,000 times is more nonsensical than pretending that athletes will outrun a military jet. And that's just for ONE protein out of thousands.

You keep spouting this nonsensical model, and I keep telling you it's nonsensical but it doesn't seem to register.

I'm very sorry but things simply don't work this way. You need to study proteins for a while to get a feel for how things work.

First of all, short polypeptide sequences are ubiquitous, in some cases they are specifically cleaved from larger ones and in others they're built from scratch

Secondly, duplication is a very common form of mutation. Entire sequences get duplicated all at once, and then further point mutation occurs afterwards. In this way you get things like channel proteins that have 4 to 7 helical subunits with basically identical sequences

For instance - this is what a potassium channel looks like:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/1K4C.png/250px-1K4C.png

You can read about it here:

Potassium channel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are more complicated examples. This is what a voltage gated calcium channel looks like in real life:

https://www.guidetopharmacology.org/images/introductions/80_1.jpeg

You can make sense of the subunits here:

Voltage-gated calcium channel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[scruffy]

Genesis.

There is no old man in the sky creating species by snapping his fingers.

Doesn't happen.

Genesis reasonably accurately describes evolution and correctly says it happened in a sequence.

There is no conflict between science and the Bible.

The process of biological evolution is limited in scope, it doesn't say anything about "creation" one way or the other.

Evolution is what happens "after" creation.

You can argue about creation all you want, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[alang1216]

There is no old man in the sky creating species by snapping his fingers.

Doesn't happen.

Genesis reasonably accurately describes evolution and correctly says it happened in a sequence.

There is no conflict between science and the Bible.

The process of biological evolution is limited in scope, it doesn't say anything about "creation" one way or the other.

Evolution is what happens "after" creation.

You can argue about creation all you want, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

The question was, why is evolution controversial and I think it is solely because it is seen to contradict Genesis. If you start from the view that Genesis is the literal word of God you can't accept that new species are continuously evolving.

 

[jwoodie]

Which is actually true.

Apology accepted. Now go wipe the egg off your face.

 

[scruffy]

The question was, why is evolution controversial and I think it is solely because it is seen to contradict Genesis. If you start from the view that Genesis is the literal word of God you can't accept that new species are continuously evolving.

Sure you can. Millions do.

The Bible says "that" God created, but not "how" He did it. Apparently His method has to do with combinatorics.

If you think there's a conflict you're probably reading things that aren't there.

 

[Mushroom]

Apology accepted. Now go wipe the egg off your face.

Wow, you are actually reading nothing, are you?

 

[alang1216]

Sure you can. Millions do.

The Bible says "that" God created, but not "how" He did it. Apparently His method has to do with combinatorics.

If you think there's a conflict you're probably reading things that aren't there.

I don't disagree but there are plenty of Bible literalists, a good crop right here on USMB, that cannot reconcile the Bible and evolution. That was my only point, it was not meant to be defense of literalists.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Here is an original science theory nobody has ever propounded or perhaps even considered.
Brilliant scientists around the world believe that Nature's God, as He is called in our Declaration of Independence, created the universe for us humans.

Given that very reasonable premise, does it not follow that Nature's God knew how much fossil fuel we would need?
There is approximately 40 years of crude oil remaining underground.

That's approximately the time man has left here on earth, 40 years. Don't bother with electric vehicles. Most electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, but the Cultists never think things through. They just scream and complain and panic, and pretend to be better than everyone else.