Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
FREE SERVANT

United States

#108361 Jan 26, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no issue with cycles, of course our environment is cyclical. I do have issues accepting that our planet was hand-sculpted, or that these cycles were built by an unknown higher force, comparable to someone building and tuning a clock.
Well, Mr Brazil; finally we have come to a common ground to a certain extent. Your input means a lot to me here, thank you for that. I argue that timing produces the most effective results and this is a sound approach for the problems in nature and consideration and thought showing judgement must have been involved from the start of these systems.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#108362 Jan 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So extremely lucky is your scientific explanation? Show that theory of extremely lucky if you have time.
the vehicle was bouncing.....

if it was a real video at all.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#108363 Jan 26, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Well, Mr Brazil; finally we have come to a common ground to a certain extent. Your input means a lot to me here, thank you for that. I argue that timing produces the most effective results and this is a sound approach for the problems in nature and consideration and thought showing judgement must have been involved from the start of these systems.
Thanks for the kind words, but I am not implying that 'judgment' could not have been involved in the forming of life. Judgment would suggest that life came about by a Creator, which stems back to the root of this topic. Although I will not say there is no Creator, I will state that I am a firm believer that life came to be through evolution.
MISSISSIPPI

Pass Christian, MS

#108364 Jan 26, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the kind words, but I am not implying that 'judgment' could not have been involved in the forming of life. Judgment would suggest that life came about by a Creator, which stems back to the root of this topic. Although I will not say there is no Creator, I will state that I am a firm believer that life came to be through evolution.
Close but don't light the cigar.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#108366 Jan 26, 2014
MISSISSIPPI wrote:
<quoted text>Close but don't light the cigar.
I don't smoke.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108367 Jan 26, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Life did not just begin as simple as a few chemicals and then become more complex. Natural systems reproduced life on earth as we know it now. All kinds of living things follow patterns of former sorts of their kind and they came about by patterned instructions as to how they would unfold. The earth was reseeded after a great cataclysmic breaking up of the continental plates, according to one hypothesis.
5140

We had several breakups.
The point is that we start life as we have been provided proof of it's existence, and (re)production from there
If we find life in closed of water that is at least 2,8 billion years old and quite simple, using a different foodsource and not being carbon/oxygen/light based, the next challenge is to figure out how this formed, but also how it connects to all the rest.
Or whether is was just a residue of at least two emergent evolutions.
Or an adaptation form an organism that set out differently.
Some processes in animals are to do with genes of f.i. purpur bacteria becoming part of our genetic make up.

Reseeding is a strange one.
(where did they keep the seed )

Another interesting paper, about pseudogenes:
http://longlab.uchicago.edu/sites/default/fil...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108368 Jan 26, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
A theory such as SCPID will remain strong in the face of intimidation by great numbers of so-called scientist when it's prediction about system cycling can not be proven false. As long as this simple concept remains true, the theory stands. The basic concept will continue to be useful until someone proves that natural systems somewhere do not cycle or follow a circuit.
Chemistry as simply causality is a fine start.
Take little bubles in stone or mud before cellwalls even evolve and some exchange of elements is set in motion. Creating stasis and a stable ongoing cycle thus.
Thermal vent wet Montmorillion soil (see wiki on abiogenesis (Carpentras-soil) is also good with lipids to form a cell wall.

Would be nice to find the actual paper on it. As well as on the simples chemical cycle probable given short days a.s.o. thus the environment then.

In the link above about pseudogenes it talks also about the theory of nature as tinkerer. NOTE not an intelligent engineer. Nature tinkers, it does not get it right in one go.

A reposting:
4 would be fullblown bio-chemistry cycling.

Fortunately, an alternative group of theories that can employ these materials has existed for decades. The theories employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life, under a scheme put forth by Carl Sagan in the Encyclopedia Britannica: A localized region which increases in order (decreases in entropy) through cycles driven by an energy flow would be considered alive. This small-molecule approach is rooted in the ideas of the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin, and current notable spokesmen include de Duve, Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study, Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute, Doron Lancet of the Weizmann Institute, Harold Morowitz of George Mason University and the independent researcher Gnter Wchtershuser. I estimate that about a third of the chemists involved in the study of the origin of life subscribe to theories based on this idea. Origin-of-life proposals of this type differ in specific details; here I will try to list five common requirements (and add some ideas of my own).
(1) A boundary is needed to separate life from non-life
(2) An energy source is needed to drive the organization process.
(3) A coupling mechanism must link the release of energy to the organization process that produces and sustains life.
(4) A chemical network must be formed, to permit adaptation and evolution.
Here enters the cycle.
(5) The network must grow and reproduce.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-s ...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108369 Jan 26, 2014
The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator.

Over the years, many theoretical papers have advanced particular metabolism first schemes, but relatively little experimental work has been presented in support of them. In those cases where experiments have been published, they have usually served to demonstrate the plausibility of individual steps in a proposed cycle. The greatest amount of new data has perhaps come from Gnter Wchtershuser and his colleagues at the Technische Universitt Mnchen. They have demonstrated portions of a cycle involving the combination and separation of amino acids, in the presence of metal sulfide catalysts. The energetic driving force for the transformations is supplied by the oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. They have not yet demonstrated the operation of a complete cycle or its ability to sustain itself and undergo further evolution. A "smoking gun" experiment displaying those three features is needed to establish the validity of the small molecule approach.

That's the difference between science and pseudoscience: science requires experimental validity. Creationists have harped for years on the low probability of life's spontaneous emergence in the universe. Meanwhile, scientists have been fashioning, testing, junking, redeveloping, and once again fashioning more and more plausible scenarios, not content to rest in comfortable ignorance.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108370 Jan 27, 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montmorillonite

Montmorillonite is also known to cause micelles (lipid spheres) to assemble together into vesicles. These are structures that resemble cell membranes on many cells. It can also help nucleotides to assemble into RNA which will end up inside the vesicles. It has been demonstrated that this could have generated highly complex RNA polymers that could reproduce the RNA trapped within the vesicles.[8] This process may have led to the origin of life on Earth.[9]

Similar to many other clays, montmorillonite swells with the addition of water. However, some montmorillonites expand considerably more than other clays due to water penetrating the interlayer molecular spaces and concomitant adsorption. The amount of expansion is due largely to the type of exchangeable cation contained in the sample. The presence of sodium as the predominant exchangeable cation can result in the clay swelling to several times its original volume. Hence, sodium montmorillonite has come to be used as the major constituent in non-explosive agents for splitting rock in natural stone quarries in order to limit the amount of waste, or for the demolition of concrete structures where the use of explosive charges is unacceptable.

Use in medicine and pharmacology[edit]

Montmorillonite is effective as an adsorptive of heavy metals.[6]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307
Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life
19:00 23 October 2003 by Philip Cohen

The study of montmorillonite clay, by Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs.

These vesicles also grow and undergo a simple form of division, giving them the properties of primitive cells. Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals. "Interestingly, the clay also gets internalised in the vesicles," says Leslie Orgel, an origin of life expert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego, California. "So this work is quite nice in that it finds a connection between the mechanism that creates RNA and encloses it in a membrane."

Szostak wondered whether montmorillonite could also help the assembly of vesicles from simple fatty acid precursors. He remembers the day his colleagues Hanczyc and Fujikawa ran into his office to show him their first results: the clay caused a 100-fold acceleration of vesicle formation.

"It was pretty amazing," he says. Once formed, the vesicles often incorporated bit of clay and were able to grow by absorbing more fatty acid subunits.

His team also showed the clay could hold RNA and form vesicles at the same time. Fluorescently-labelled RNA attached to the clay ended up assembled into vesicles after the reaction. And the researchers were able to get these "protocells" to divide by forcing them through small holes. This caused them to split into smaller vesicles, with minimal loss of their contents.

Szostak admits that in a natural setting the vesicles would rarely be forced to divide in this way. So now his group is searching for different mixtures of membrane-forming molecules that might divide spontaneously when they reach a certain size.

Journal reference: Science (vol 302, p 618 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
cyano bacteria

I see... they expanded the article. lol
Gunther Wchterhuser is also mentioned.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#108371 Jan 27, 2014
MAAT wrote:
The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator.
Over the years, many theoretical papers have advanced particular metabolism first schemes, but relatively little experimental work has been presented in support of them. In those cases where experiments have been published, they have usually served to demonstrate the plausibility of individual steps in a proposed cycle. The greatest amount of new data has perhaps come from Gnter Wchtershuser and his colleagues at the Technische Universitt Mnchen. They have demonstrated portions of a cycle involving the combination and separation of amino acids, in the presence of metal sulfide catalysts. The energetic driving force for the transformations is supplied by the oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. They have not yet demonstrated the operation of a complete cycle or its ability to sustain itself and undergo further evolution. A "smoking gun" experiment displaying those three features is needed to establish the validity of the small molecule approach.
That's the difference between science and pseudoscience: science requires experimental validity. Creationists have harped for years on the low probability of life's spontaneous emergence in the universe. Meanwhile, scientists have been fashioning, testing, junking, redeveloping, and once again fashioning more and more plausible scenarios, not content to rest in comfortable ignorance.
It seems to me the 'comfortable ignorance' is in those who do not try to understand the significance of systems and their importance in nature. I have been called an idiot and other ill-chosen names for suggesting life rest on the simple SCPID principles of which a third grade school child can comprehend, but I am not here for self-grandizement, and I am not bothered in the least by such accusations when the truth of which I seek will stand the test of time.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108372 Jan 27, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It seems to me the 'comfortable ignorance' is in those who do not try to understand the significance of systems and their importance in nature. I have been called an idiot and other ill-chosen names for suggesting life rest on the simple SCPID principles of which a third grade school child can comprehend, but I am not here for self-grandizement, and I am not bothered in the least by such accusations when the truth of which I seek will stand the test of time.
hmmm...grin
Trust those seeking truth,
distrust those claiming TRUTH.

In the meantime you are also in the same waiting room.

Science will not look for the improbable , as in the I. D'er.

So i would call it a sceptical armchair approach.

As long as you are aware of occupying that position, or being perceived as such, you should be aware that criticism will be wafted unless it's pertinent.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108373 Jan 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
1, Why ,... fool do you continue to bring up reproduction in a life's origin debate?
2. That is certainly not confirmed and where did they come from , no answer
3. There is no proof of natural chemical abiogenesis, only your belief
4. So, atmosphere does not create life.
5. chemistry has not been shown to create life, to say otherwise is a lie
6. Then Jew magic and your beliefs have the same amount of evidence,
1 - Because everything life is ultimately boils down to chemistry.

2 - Actually yes it is confirmed, unless you have evidence of life prior to abiogenesis. And the chemicals were already present here on Earth, just as there's lots of chemicals on every other planet. We can go back even further (risking infinite regression of course) but this is effectively moving the goalposts back to the formation of the Earth itself. However like the theory of evolution not relying on abiogenesis, abiogenesis is not required to explain the formation of planets themselves.

3 - This does not address my point three. So far it is still correct. If you are still looking for "proof", you might want to study math. Especially in light of your constant plagiarising of bogus creationist numbers against abiogenesis.

4 - Didn't claim it to.

5 - Plain and simply wrong on your part. To the contrary, chemistry is ALL that's observed to create life, period. To say otherwise is a lie.

6 - Except for the predictions abio made that I pointed out in point 3:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

7 - How is complexity measured, Bo? You've not been able to answer this one for a few years now. Don't you see how that is a problem since your entire position hangs on this premise?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108374 Jan 27, 2014
Friday Jan 24, Dude said: Oh hey Bo. How is complexity measured? How do I quantify the difference between a paper aeroplane and a space shuttle?

You said you were gonna be slow but I didn't realise you were gonna be THIS slow.***
.
.
***Okay I'm kidding, I did know. Just call me a prophet.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dumb Dud, like in the movie, if an obelisk was discovered on the moon, would that be proof of complexity or just caused by random forces, take your time
An obelisk is a very simple object, is it not? Pure black rectangular cuboid with 6 sides. I suppose you COULD argue for the complexity of whatever the heck was IN it, but then we never really found out, did we.

Just as WE never found out - how this 2001 reference tells me how complexity is measured and how to measure the difference between a paper plane and a space shuttle.

Take your time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108375 Jan 27, 2014
Late to the party wrote:
I wanna start by saying everyone should YouTube EVOLUTION VS GOD..it's only 38 minutes long.the documentary is from a Christian but puts the shoe on the Darwin's foot ...the question throughout the documentary asks one simple question...If one believes in Darwins THEORY of evolution (mind u it is just a theory) "show me one(just one) change in kind (meaning one specious changing/morphing) into anther specious??) The Narrorater in this video interviews Drs, Professors as well as students in science ,biology,etc from many colleges/universities asking the question "Show me a change in kind,again meaning one species to another..........Ironic hiw one professor says to believe in evolution. It takes "faith" to bieves I. Evolution ......I advise all opened mind folks to watch the video evolution vs God...also bill bye the so called "scienc guy "is debating a crate ironist on feb 4 ...should b interesting
That god lost. Creationists worship a wimp.

Bill Nye won't do well though. He's participating in a public event with a master liar and PR man. Which is not really what this whole thing is about.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108376 Jan 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
MAAT is thus a God of the goo adherent
Bo, how do you measure complexity?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108377 Jan 27, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a fact...
Sure it is. You fundies always feel threatened unless your the controlling majority:

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108378 Jan 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha, banning science. You have all the objectivity of the Taliban.
Really? Is that why your current IDCreationist movement has links to JR Rushdooney?

And how come you guys have been flagrantly violating the First Amendment for DECADES by teaching kids outright lies in public schools?

Yet you don't have a problem with this at all. That's why American creationists are called the *Christian* taliban.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text> Because you are just as religious.
Hardly. We've accepted abio as an unproven hypothesis from the beginning. However no alternative hypothesis has ever been presented.

And yet here you are, ranting against abiogenesis and hoping to counter it with invisible Jewmagic, while on a forum about a subject which does not depend on abiogenesis anyway.
bohart wrote:
Why don't you tell those kids how a warm puddle of lifeless goo came to life using the scientific method. if you can't you are teaching a belief, not science.
I doubt very much that abio would even get a mention beyond its proper context - a scientific hypothesis currently under research. But if they do that then you think you're allowed to teach Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and David Barton:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...

And the Constitution can go to hell, because who gives a f ck about the US of A anyway?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108379 Jan 27, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is making that claim but you mate!
Ah, I see you're a latecomer.

Very late in fact.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108380 Jan 27, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Some experts may disagree with your assertions that life was not in variety from the start.
Except for the fact that if they did they wouldn't be experts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108381 Jan 27, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
A theory such as SCPID
ShitsCrapsPoopsIntelligentDesi gn.

Still don't care.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 3 min Sigmund Freud 7,751
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 min Crazy Beautiful 150,848
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 5 min Mickey Ratt Club 3,727
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 9 min Montgomery 23,830
10,000th Post WINS 4.0 (Apr '12) 14 min Hatti_Hollerand 5,198
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 22 min liam cul8r 7,110
GMGMike's Bar And Grill (Jan '10) 25 min liam cul8r 20,379
Bill Cosby 54 min Deer Whisperer 73
Two chocolate makers warn of huge annual deficit 1 hr mr goodwrench 69

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE