GodsSamus said:
Actually, Evolution, since it's a theory of ORIGINS, it can't be placed anywhere but RELIGION,
Evolution says NOTHING about "origins"(origin of life). That is a whole other field of study, ABIOGENESIS. Now other posters have told you this and I find it quite incredible that you continue to post such nonsense. Here's a short trip through ABIOGENESIS:
1. The basic premise of abiogeneisis is that life is simply an emergent property of what was non-living chemistry. What is meant by an "emergent property":
Emergence harkens back to the old adage "that a whole is more than the sum of its parts". An emergent property is one which arises from the interaction of "lower-level" entities, none of which show it. That is, complex systems demonstrate properties that: 1) are not demonstrated by the parts, and 2) cannot be predicted apriori even with full understanding of the parts.
Here's a simple illustration of what is meant by "emergent property"....
Let's take the case of water. In this case "wetness" is a emergent property that arises from the union of two hydrogens with one oxygen, i.e., a molecule of water. Both hydrogen and oxygen are flammable gases (under ordinary conditions of moderate temperature, pressure). Water has a number of properties that don't in any way resemble the properties of it's lower level components, oxygen and hydrogen.
The same thing is most probably true of living chemisty, i.e., it is simply an emergent property of non-living chemistry and there is data to back that assertion which is why the science of abiogenesis is alive and well. Here's my summary of it:
As a matter of fact, a patent for an artificially created "life-form", the protocell, (no DNA, but a self-replicator) has been applied.
A.
In this paper Pappellis and Fox petitioned to have protocells (as organisms) be designated as a new domain of life. "The paper also briefly discusses that certain types of proteinoid microsphere protocells -- called metaprotocells -- have been demonstrated to convert light into ATP, to use that ATP to make polynucleotides, and then to use those polynucleotides as templates to make polypeptides."
Pappelis A, Fox SW. Domain Protolife. Journal of Biological Physics 20: 129-132, 1994.
B.
Protocell chemistry and how they function(explained simply by lucaspa)
C.
Lucaspa answers criticisms about protocells. He explains just why protocells should be considered alive.
D.
HERE is a post by lucaspa on the subject of both protocells and TNA. The most likely scenario would be have a "housing" for genetic material develop first:
Life out of magma: a new theory for the origin of life, by Lucido, G.Nuovo Cimento Della Societa Italiana di Fisica D - Condensed matter, Atomic, Molecular and Chemical Physics, Fluids, Plasmas, Biophysics 20(12): 2575-2591; December, 1998
ABSTRACT
On the basis of colloid physical chemistry and taking into account the foundations of the thermodynamics of the unsteady state, a new theory of the origin of life is proposed. The temperature prevailing on the early Earth was too high for any form of life to be formed. The basic elements were distributed chaotically in space and constituted the hot primordial magma ocean. On cooling, however, a certain order slowly but surely began to establish itself. In particular a surficial colloidal soup originated in this magma ocean, once phase separation phenomena started. Subsequently in the long run, at or near the Earth's surface, amphiphilic molecules contained in this colloidal soup began to distribute themselves in vesicular aggregates. Every vesicle structure was surrounded by a barrier that kept it separate from other vesicle structures and from the environment. From a thermodynamic stand point there was a three-phase system: interior, barrier and exterior. The formation of these structures was the crucial event for the origin of cellular life. As to the origin of the earliest cell, the following sequence of events is proposed: primitive hot magma --> spinodal decomposition --> nucleation and growth --> colloidal soup --> amphiphilic molecules --> spontaneous vesicles --> functioning protocells --> prokaryotic cell.
DNA and the cell as we know it today would not have been the original model, but the "final" outcome of early chemical events. The appearance of DNA would not have had to have happened at once for there to be viable life-forms that replicated without it. These older life-forms, e.g., protocells, would have served as intermediate steps as life adapted to the changing earth enviroment , to the life as we know it today.
E. To get a self-assembling "cell" (protocell) from non-living chemicals, go to the following sites, especially the second one:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
There is empirical evidence for abiogenesis.
F. Abiogenesis--Part 1
G. Abiogenesis--Part 2
H. Abiogenesis--Part 3
I. Where "The God-of-Gaps" is Currently "Hiding"
Now on to your next bit of misinformation:
GodsSamus said:
since the scientific method deals with REPEATING IN THE LAB.
Wrong again.... The scientific method does NOT consist of only the "men in white coats" approach. Again you demonstrate that you know nothing about science of how it works:
Part 1--Basic Scientific Definitions and Methodology
And since you repeatedly try to claim that evolution is a religion (always presented with NO support for that bogus claim, BTW), here's why that is wrong:
1. Part 2--Philosophical Naturalism vs Methodological Naturalism
2. Evolution... a Religion? by Valkhorn
GodsSamus said:
Evolution has been DISPROVEN whenever it COULD be compared to the evidence.
Oh really? If that is so then show us such a case of where evolution has been disproven by the evidence.
I challenge you to take Scigirl's Chromosome Challenge or show any "disproof:" of any of the evidence for human evolution given in this link. Let's see you put your arguments/evidence where your mouth is.
GodsSamus said:
Wow. I never knew all that. However, the mutations are generally HARMFUL. BENEFICIAL mutations are required for Evolution.
The reason I call Darwinism a religion is because it's based on the ASSUMPTION that a mutation (or any number) can turn one animal into another animal. However, I renounce the claim that mutations are rare.
Again, more ignorance from you. You have just demonstrated to those of us with real degrees/education that you don't know what you are talking about.
1. What Mutations Are (a brief explanation)
2. Beneficial Mutations (lists, what "beneficial" means)
