EPTDebunk this argument - Page 4
| Blogs > Track |
|
hideo
Canada1641 Posts
| ||
|
ZeroCartin
Costa Rica2390 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
The law of biogenesis The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms of the same kind and not from nonliving matter. that being said how could this happen? Actually, it's pretty easy. However, before we can begin, we have to define what "life" is. For the purposes of the kind of life that could be built from non-living materials, life should be defined as something along these lines: 1: A collection of molecules that can maintain homeostasis to some degree. That is, it can keep the molecules it wants within some perimeter, and the molecules that it doesn't want to enter the area can generally not do so. 2: A collection of molecules that can ingest other molecules and use those molecules to perform some function. 3: A collection of molecules that can self-replicate to a reasonable degree. What does it take to create this? According to the RNA World hypothesis, not very much. The RNA World hypothesis suggests that live began as a system of simple fatty acids and RNAs. RNA has the ability to catalyze processes much like proteins. And RNA can even catalyze RNA replication via a template. Much like protein synthesis, the catalytic RNA strand would sit on top of the template and help get other nucleic acids to attack to their complimentary positions on the strand. Even better, RNA strands can self-polymerize in a sloppier form of replication. So the catalyst strand can produce its template strand, which would allow the catalyst strand to catalyze its own replication. Now, all you need is a membrane. That's where the fatty acids come in. Fatty acids in water naturally form tiny clumps called micelles that can contain molecules. And it turns out that fatty acid micelles would permit free ribonucleic acids to enter and leave the clump, but any RNA strand bigger than a couple of base pairs would be trapped inside and/or prevented from leaving. Even more interesting, fatty acid micelles are capable of adding other fatty acids to their membrane, either by ingesting free-floating molecules or by ingesting other micelles and their contents. If they add too much to the membrane, then they will eventually divide into two or more micelles. The contents of the mycelles are preserved in the division. So the stage is set. If one of these RNA synthesis catalizers gets caught in the formation of a micell, that RNA strand will still be able to produce more RNA strands from monomers. However, it would be in a protected environment, so it wouldn't be catalyzing the creation of arbitrary RNA strands; it would only be able to catalyze the strands in the mycell. A catalyzer and the catalyzer-template strand in a mycell would cause the production of a lot (relatively speaking) of catalyzers within that mycell. This synthesis is error-prone, and thus is now susceptible to evolution: random mutation and natural selection. A catalyzer might create a mutated copy of itself that works better. The better-working catalyzers will be more effective at producing copies of themselves, so they will naturally out-compete the older catalyzers. A mutation that makes the catalyst work less effectively or not at all will simply create a "dead" mycell: one that has no catalyzed replication. And the most interesting part is that there is actually a catalyst that catalyzes both the polymerization of RNA and the formation of fatty acids: Montmorillonite clay. So this particular clay could very well have been the kick-off point for the beginnings of life. Now, there is no direct evidence yet that this is how life started (though the fact that RNA is involved in every part of protein synthesis today is highly suggestive). Indeed, there may never be; primitive cells would have eventually been out-competed by better, more effective cells, so none of them are left. And they were very small, so there wouldn't even be micro-fossils of them. Even if we were to replicate the natural formation of primitive cells via the above method, we wouldn't be sure that this is how our life started, only that it is one way life could have started. and if "vertical evolution", or evolution from one species to another, were true why would we have the diversity in species and animals we have today? wouldnt there just be one superanimal that could survive anything? why would this evolve into us... and a gorilla, whats the point when evolving into a human would be the best option? Because evolution isn't alive. It doesn't have a goal or an end-product. It isn't trying to do anything. Evolution is simply the outcome of what happens when you have a system that has: 1: Entities with phenotypic traits that can be passed on to offspring. 2: Random mutation of those traits that can create new phenotypes. 3: An environmental pressure that can give advantages or disadvantages to phenotypic traits. Evolution is the inevitable result of what happens when these things come together. Evolution doesn't want things. best of luck to all those who would try to catch evolution in the act. It's already happened. Here is a list of observed instances of speciation. Evolution has happened both in the lab and out of it. It's real. What's really crazy isn't evolution, it's how the world is only 6,000 years old. Want to know how crazy that is? Check out this video. Watch it all the way to the end. It's absolutely hilarious and awesome. This would imply that it is biologically possible to have a situation where species Z (the intermediate stage) can breed with species X and with species Y, but X and Y cannot breed with each other (the relation is not transitive, if you like). Do we have any evidence that such a thing is possible? Has anything like that ever been observed? Yes. It's called a Ring species, and it has been observed. It also somewhat confounds the definition of "species", due to some members of the population being unable to produce viable offspring with other members of the population. Shouldnt this thread be finished after the 1st reply? No. People need better education about evolution (lack of this is why so many in public doubt it), so reasonable questions/answers can be fielded. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21548 Posts
| ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On May 21 2009 05:34 koreasilver wrote: Yes, you are! | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
- there "probably" was life even way before evolution itself, call it the first era of open source when it comes to genetic information. - at one point in the history of life in our planet among the original life cells, a random mutation made one individual life form more "selfish" with the transmission of its own genetic material and at the same time gave it greater stability in its particular environment, an evolutionary advantage and thus the birth of evolution.. u could call it metaphorically speaking, a "gene of selfishness".. - it probably was an improvement in its cell wall/membrane. - prior to this life form, early life forms probably swapped genetic material amongst themselves with little restrictions and there was no single species, but many forms that swapped genetic information constantly amongst themselves.. - now comes a new life form, humans, with the ability to pick and chose genes and insert them into other current lifeforms, its own code and even in some extinct species; thus A NEW ERA OF OPEN SOURCE IS UPON US, albeit not as open as the first one, but this time with "some" intelligence behind it, not just random trial and error.. - I am kind of looking forward to green photosynthetic women with exalted libidos and that don't need to be fed (much). + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5996/startrek2.jpg) gl! gg | ||
|
Track
United States217 Posts
Okay kdub, There has NEVER been any successful trials in getting life from non life. Maybe aminos from smaller cells, but not entirely inorganic matter. It would hit a major news source considering the vast majority of scientists want information out about the hypothesis of evolution. To begin with Id like to say that you have no idea how much I know about evolution, so dont call me stupid or ignorant which is what youre jabbing at. A question I also have is have they ever formed those amino acids into proteins and then into DNA, etc.. and They havent.... anyway This idea that there is room for millions of years for these kinds of changes to happen is bogus. If you didnt know it, the sun decreases in diameter by 5 feet every day, if you trace that back a million years, the earth wouldnt even exist. Another disproof of evolution is that if you follow the population growth of humans (or their primate ancestors that you believe in) over just a one million year period factoring in death disease war disasters etc and say that every couple has 2.4 children (an average I know you cant have .4 of a person: also this is a very generous number considering it is much bigger today than that) then there would be 10^5000 people on the earth right now, which there arent. Also this is insane to say considering that the number of people that can fit in the universe is only 10^100 people. ^ this means there is not enough time for evolution to occur, but if there was then heres something else.... This next paragraph is probably the easiest to understand. For anyone who wants clear cut proof. To combat your argument that some creature would evolve into me and some other animal because of food is crazy! If the creature was not originally able to eat that hard nut or something then it would just go eat something else... If it couldnt eat that food and it had plenty of other food sources, why change just for that one. If that were the only food available at that time then the creature wouldnt have millions of years to ADAPT to be able to eat it, it would die. So, using your own theory it would be better for that animal to not evolve at all rather than change to something that can eat that nut. Another big thing to think about is that if the "original organism" were placed in each of these environments and the animal changes into the best fit for each of those areas, wouldnt there be very little overlap of animal species rather than some animals live in many places all over the world and overlap with thousands of other animals. Also I would like to say that you are the only one in this convesation that is making overgeneralizations. Like you assume that something happened to cause the first clump of matter. You also assume that there are thousands of "transitional lifeforms" out there that havent been discovered yet. Alright just one more thing, regarding entropy, entropy does not propose that this would happen. For anyone who doesnt know, entropy is, put simply, the fact that energy is constantly changing to a less usable form of energy. No organization can be formed out of this disorganization. According to you (KW), and your idea entropy, then is would be plausible that if we boxed in a junkyard and proceeded to set off charges of dynamite or some other form of energy that eventually something would be formed, whether it be a car or even a motorcycle, it just cant happen. If I tried to tell you that I found this laptop on a beach and since there were no other humans or creator there, then it mustve always been there, you would laugh in my face. [end] Debunk away! | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
There has NEVER been any successful trials in getting life from non life. Maybe aminos from smaller cells, but not entirely inorganic matter. "Organic matter" means material that contains carbon. Outside of fusion and fission, neither of which are directly involved in creating life, you cannot create organic matter from inorganic matter. You had to get the carbon from somewhere. Further, that there have been no successful human trials in creating life from simple molecules is meaningless. Did fission not exist until we detonated the atomic bomb? Just because we have not replicated something ourselves (yet) doesn't mean it didn't happen, just as much as creating life from simple molecules does not mean that life developed that way (it only means it could have). If you didnt know it, the sun decreases in diameter by 5 feet every day, if you trace that back a million years, the earth wouldnt even exist. Assuming you're correct about the sun decreasing in diameter 5 feet per day, that still doesn't show that the sun has always been doing so. Another disproof of evolution is that if you follow the population growth of humans (or their primate ancestors that you believe in) over just a one million year period factoring in death disease war disasters etc and say that every couple has 2.4 children (an average I know you cant have .4 of a person: also this is a very generous number considering it is much bigger today than that) then there would be 10^5000 people on the earth right now, which there arent. Also this is insane to say considering that the number of people that can fit in the universe is only 10^100 people. It is a well-known fact that if a population of any creature outstrips the local environment's ability to sustain that population, then the population will shrink to a sustainable size. AKA: people will starve. Modern society has given us a lot of benefits. The most important being that we never have had to worry about where food comes from. This has not been the case in the past. Most tribal cultures were doing good to sustain zero population growth. If the creature was not originally able to eat that hard nut or something then it would just go eat something else... If it couldnt eat that food and it had plenty of other food sources, why change just for that one. If that were the only food available at that time then the creature wouldnt have millions of years to ADAPT to be able to eat it, it would die. This is a common misunderstanding of evolution. If you put a population in an environment that contains only food that no members of that population can eat, then yes, they will all die. However, you'd have a hard time doing that, as animals are rather more robust than that. Live isn't as binary as "can't eat this/can eat that" would suggest. In the real world, evolution works something like this. You have a population of herbivores, and there is plentiful plant food available. Then, an environmental pressure comes along. Some of the preferred plant food is no longer available. There is some plant food left, but it's harder to digest. So, since this is a real population rather than a fictional one, this population has reasonable genetic diversity. Some members of that population will be better able to digest the tougher food than others. These species will be selected for. However, since this isn't a static environment with only two things in it, there are other possibilities. Some members of that population will have forelimbs or hindlimbs that are better at digging than others. This could allow them to eat roots/carrots/etc, which are easier to digest than the easier-to-reach vegetation. Some members of that population may have tools (horns, claws, etc) that would allow them to start hunting for food to supplement their diet. Right there are 3 biological niches formed by one environmental change. And note that the initial trigger mutations for these niches are already there. That's why genetic diversity is so important in a population; it prevents one thing from coming in and killing everyone. But evolution doesn't stop just because you've put things into niches. Any new genetic diversity that comes up that helps the population survive in its environment will have similar effects. If the three niches are in geographically distinct areas, then the eventual results of successive genetic changes between the populations will cause them to speciate. At first, the two populations will be able to interbreed. After some time, they can interbreed with difficulty. Then interbreed creating non-viable offspring, and then finally they'll be entirely incompatible with one another. Keeping the populations separate is what is necessary for speciation between current populations. You also assume that there are thousands of "transitional lifeforms" out there that havent been discovered yet. Oh God, not the "no transitional forms" thing again. Take this specimen for example. This is just one of thousands of transitional forms that have been found. Here and here are two videos showing many of these transitional forms. For anyone who doesnt know, entropy is, put simply, the fact that energy is constantly changing to a less usable form of energy. That is easily the worst bastardization of "entropy" I have ever heard. For the purposes of this conversation, "Entropy" applies to a thermodynamic universe. A thermodynamic universe is a set of stuff that you define as the "system," and everything else, which are the "surroundings." Entropy is the property of this thermodynamic universe that says that, over time the pressure, temperature, and density differences between the system and the surroundings will equalize. Entropy does not mean that you can't have a temperature gradient; it only means that this gradient cannot last forever. It can last days, weeks, months, years, centuries, millennia, and much much longer, but eventually there will be no gradient between the system and surroundings. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On May 21 2009 05:18 NicolBolas wrote: Yes. It's called a Ring species, and it has been observed. It also somewhat confounds the definition of "species", due to some members of the population being unable to produce viable offspring with other members of the population. Well, that certainly answers my question. Thanks! On May 21 2009 08:41 NicolBolas wrote: That is easily the worst bastardization of "entropy" I have ever heard. For the purposes of this conversation, "Entropy" applies to a thermodynamic universe. A thermodynamic universe is a set of stuff that you define as the "system," and everything else, which are the "surroundings." Entropy is the property of this thermodynamic universe that says that, over time the pressure, temperature, and density differences between the system and the surroundings will equalize. Entropy does not mean that you can't have a temperature gradient; it only means that this gradient cannot last forever. It can last days, weeks, months, years, centuries, millennia, and much much longer, but eventually there will be no gradient between the system and surroundings. Actually, the bit about entropy was in reply to Caller's original response on page 1 of this thread, where he attributed evolution to the principle of entropy, for no reason that I could discern. On May 21 2009 01:24 Caller wrote: Entropy. I win. further clarification: ... various experimentation has demonstrated that it is possible to generate amino acids under primordial earth conditions-the basis for proteins and the beginnings of life. Entropy dictates that such chaos would eventually produce something. ... it's not that vertical evolution takes place, it's a tree. This is expected by entropy. ... these changes are gradual-a gorilla didn't give birth to a baby. This is also expected by entropy. Q.E.D. Considering that the processes dictated by entropy are very nearly the opposite of evolution, I was wondering whether caller had meant to use a different word or whether I had misunderstood his post. I just poked around Wikipedia a bit, though, and they have a whole article about the concept. It's called negative entropy, however, something that Caller's post failed to make clear... | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
| ||
|
The Raurosaur
198 Posts
On May 21 2009 07:36 Track wrote: There has NEVER been any successful trials in getting life from non life. Maybe aminos from smaller cells, but not entirely inorganic matter. It would hit a major news source considering the vast majority of scientists want information out about the hypothesis of evolution. Evolution is not about the origins of life. He's barking up the wrong tree. If you didnt know it, the sun decreases in diameter by 5 feet every day, That is incorrect, and unless he can provide a source for it I'd ignore it. You can't make scientific claims without providing evidence. Another disproof of evolution is that if you follow the population growth of humans (or their primate ancestors that you believe in) over just a one million year period factoring in death disease war disasters etc and say that every couple has 2.4 children (an average I know you cant have .4 of a person: also this is a very generous number considering it is much bigger today than that) then there would be 10^5000 people on the earth right now, which there arent. Also this is insane to say considering that the number of people that can fit in the universe is only 10^100 people. The exponential growth of the human population is a relatively recent occurrence, well documented in many historical demographic studies. Did he watch the video pyrogenetix posted? It's a great overview of evolution and its claims. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Okay look, this is all that needs to be said The law of biogenesis The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms of the same kind and not from nonliving matter. that being said how could this happen? and if "vertical evolution", or evolution from one species to another, were true why would we have the diversity in species and animals we have today? wouldnt there just be one superanimal that could survive anything? why would this evolve into us... and a gorilla, whats the point when evolving into a human would be the best option? this type of speculation of evolution is crazy. This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time. If you know anything about the sheer complexity of DNA, atoms, or any other single organ of the body then you should easily realize how crazy evolution really is! There are so many other reasons but I dont have the time to post them all. If you have any responses, questions, comments, etc then please feel free to ask tell or whatever. challenge me i need some practice arguments. Open your eyes people! Evolution from one species to another is easily destroyed by basic scientific principles. [end] The earth is not 1 averaged eco system. There are swamps, oceans, deserts, snow, etc. So perhaps one creature evolved into swamp area then adapted itself to live in the ocean, while the original stayed, and so on. Also, the earth itself has evolved in many forms, from no water-volcanic wasteland to complete ice and snow, to what it is now. Also the way the 'primordial ooze' for lack of a better term, created life is complicated. The first multicellular organisms on the earth afaik were mushrooms and fungus which lived on rocks. Who is to say just one organism formed? Perhaps 2 organisms formed and fought for the same rock to survive. Survival is the most primal of needs for any organism. Survival of the Fittest. Thus we begin the constant adaptation and creation of new life forms (which may or may not be a spin off the original life form(s).) I'm assuming your friend is religious, probably christian. Tell him he should study the history of his own religion before he gets into other people's theories. Jesus for example, didn't even exist. Yea I said it, he is fucking made up. Just like the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Good place to start is the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There". | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On May 21 2009 07:36 Track wrote: This idea that there is room for millions of years for these kinds of changes to happen is bogus. If you didnt know it, the sun decreases in diameter by 5 feet every day, if you trace that back a million years, the earth wouldnt even exist. Maybe the sun decreases 5 feet every day NOW, but that doesn't mean it has always decreased at that speed. If you see a car on the highway traveling 50mph, do you assume that that car always has been and always will be traveling at exactly 50mph? I'm not really going to get into the rest of your post, because, I hate to be a dick, but you simply don't understand what you are talking about and refuse to actually critically read our responses. Evolution is real, get over it. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
In summary: Basic fallacies: Abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated. The validity or lack thereof of 1 theory does not prove or disprove the other. Evolution only requires there is life, it's origin is irrelevant. Entropy both thermodynamic and information, is a general universal trend. It is neither a hard rule, nor does it stop the amount of free energy/information in a local area. Eg by removing energy from 1 place and adding it to another, you can increase available energy in the second area while overall entropy remains the same or increases. The sun shrinking/population growth rates: just bad/blind application of static analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_analysis#Satire:_safety_razors It's like extrapolating yourself to A+ on iccup cos your like 10-0 D+ As everyone has already mentioned. Evolution is gradual change in a population, not an individual. It is, by definition, impossible for a single individual to 'evolve'. | ||
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
| ||
|
Track
United States217 Posts
| ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
Just send him to: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html (pro-evolution) vs. http://www.trueorigin.org/ (anti-evolution) That was easy. I'm still fairly skeptical of abiogenesis though. Creation of amino acids is nothing, especially since amino acids decay very easily and very rapidly. Self replicating RNA is fine, except (1) how do you get those strands in the first place and (2) it doesn't explain anything beyond that. Molecular machinery is very complex. | ||
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
Elder dragon ftw.  | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
| ||
