Answering any questions on Evolution

Guy1 · Apr 11, 2012

SkyWriting said:
They don't. And if they did, why would they? Too much heat potential? Why?

If I'm not mistaken it's due to hydrophobic and hydrophilic elements clustering together in the form of a shell and organizing themselves due to their own properties. This is why water is considered a catalyst in these kinds of reactions.

(Scientists. Feel free to correct me)

SkyWriting · Apr 11, 2012

What is the molecular mechanism for evolution? Originally Posted by Zaius137

verysincere said:
Chemical bonds.

Then you would think the word "bond" would have come up in this paper:

Molecular Mechanisms of Colicin Evolution’

or this
Molecular mechanism for evolution described

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/1998/19981126-hsp90.html

Guy1 · Apr 11, 2012

SkyWriting said:
What is the molecular mechanism for evolution? Originally Posted by Zaius137

Then you would think the word "bond" would have come up in this paper:

Molecular Mechanisms of Colicin Evolution

or this
Molecular mechanism for evolution described

You've used the second link before. It's clear that you have no idea what it says.

As for the first one, I can't see it. The fact that it's just on google docs raises a few red flags.

Zaius137 · Apr 11, 2012

Why dont you work the calculations for yourself and present them. I would appreciate the correction in the matter.

From sfsSince I was an author of that paper, this is not exactly news to me. The mutation rate you cited was the rate at which mutations occur. To apply it to human/chimpanzee divergence, you have to count the number of differences between them, that is, the number of mutations that have occurred. What you don't do is count the number of bases that differ between them, since some mutations add or subtract thousands or millions of bases. So the 4 percent has nothing at all to do with the mutation rate you quoted. This is really not a complicated idea.

The mutation rate for insertions and deletions -- which contributed the bulk of that 4% difference -- was estimated in the chimp genome paper to be one-seventh the single base substitution rate, and in the other paper you cited to be 10% of the single base rate. Those are the numbers you should be using.

I went back to the paper I cited and went threw one of there calculations. I did the following:

t= number of generations 250k (Generation =20 years) (5x10^6/20)
(from 5 million years)
k= as variable
Ne= effective size of population ~10^4
(u)=mutation rate 2.5x10^-8 or 175 new mutations/generation (175/7x10^9)
Please note the units for mutation rate.

I got a (k) value (or autosomal pseudogene) of 1.26%; at this point I will claim a higher value for (k) but only about 3%.... This seems to line up with the findings of that older paper.

My 3% is form

... on closer inspection we differ by 1.2% in the functional genes that code for proteins. And we also differ by about 3% in the non-coding DNA regions, so called "junk DNA" - although this phrase seems to be losing meaning as some of these regions regulate genes and possess as yet unknown functions. So overall we can say that chimp and human DNA is about 96% identical - which is still very close. If you were to lay both genomes out side by side you would see that base for base they are 96% similar.

Comparing Chimp DNA and Human DNA

Work it out for yourself I will do the values again using your 60 mutations per generation and 3% divergence but you wont like the result. Here it is anyway

t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)
k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 3%
Ne= effective size of population (10^4)
(u)=mutation rate (9x10^-9)

From http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full

t= .5(k/u-4Ne)

in generations that is 1.65 million or 33 million years since the human chimp divergence

Zaius137 · Apr 11, 2012

Guy1 said:
The elements present in life organize themselves. It's that simple really. We're based on one of the hardiest, most reactive elements in the entire periodic table: Carbon. This thing binds to every element and their crusty grandma, in several ways. So the fact that something with an in-built urge to last arose, is not that impressive.

Put together all the essential DNA components in the proper concentrations and orientation and refresh them continuously. Provide wet and dry cycles and seed the mixture with tiny RNA and Protein segments catalyzed by enzymes. Provide an elemental sugar for fuel and expose the mixture to all wavelengths of light and polarizing radiation. Incubate it and cool it at regular intervals any way you like.

AND.. !no life will come fourth! Why? Because the science specifies the probability of life well below the universal bound. Simply (probability of life<< universal bound).

I dont suppose you have ever read anything by Dean Kenyon? Once an evolutionist now a creationist.

Dean Kenyon - old Earth creationist

bjt2024 · Apr 11, 2012

SkyWriting said:
They don't. And if they did, why would they? Too much heat potential? Why?

The compounds that formed life came together because of their properties.

For example the phospholipid bilayer that forms a membrane around cells. The head of the lipid is hydrophilic but the tail is hydrophobic, this allows an fluid arrangement of the compounds which acts a barrier and holds form due to it's hydrophobicity in a solution.

In general terms chemicals react because inorder to lower there energy states and become more stable. The more unstable a atom/molecule, the more likely it is to spontaneously react with another atom/molecule.

This is very well shown in DNA and RNA. RNA is a highly unstable molecule, but reacts very easily and therefore is a good catalyst. Whereas DNA is very stable and does not react with ease.

Guy1 · Apr 11, 2012

Zaius137 said:
Put together all the essential DNA components in the proper concentrations and orientation and refresh them continuously. Provide wet and dry cycles and seed the mixture with tiny RNA and Protein segments catalyzed by enzymes. Provide an elemental sugar for fuel and expose the mixture to all wavelengths of light and polarizing radiation. Incubate it and cool it at regular intervals any way you like.

I don't know what you're going on about here really.

Zaius137 said:
AND.. !no life will come fourth! Why? Because the science specifies the probability of life well below the universal bound. Simply (probability of life<< universal bound).

Now I know this is bull. Nobody that has even a crude understanding of statistics, would dare say something like this. We can't calculate the probability of life originating because we only have a sample size of one. Stat 101: A sample size of 1 does not a statistic make.

Zaius137 said:
I dont suppose you have ever read anything by Dean Kenyon? Once an evolutionist now a creationist.

Dean Kenyon - old Earth creationist[/url]

No. I have not. Nor do I intend to.

I have a question for you though. What relevant qualifications do you posses?

bjt2024 · Apr 11, 2012

Zaius137 said:
Put together all the essential DNA components in the proper concentrations and orientation and refresh them continuously. Provide wet and dry cycles and seed the mixture with tiny RNA and Protein segments catalyzed by enzymes. Provide an elemental sugar for fuel and expose the mixture to all wavelengths of light and polarizing radiation. Incubate it and cool it at regular intervals any way you like.

AND.. !no life will come fourth! Why? Because the science specifies the probability of life well below the universal bound. Simply (probability of life<< universal bound).

I dont suppose you have ever read anything by Dean Kenyon? Once an evolutionist now a creationist.

Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment or any of the subsequent experiments which followed in fashion?

A primitive atmosphere of molecules such as ammonia, hydrogen, water and methane were subjected to currents of electrons, the molecules reacted over time and were examined to be amino acids and other simple biological molecules.such as lipids and carbohydrates. In 2007 the sealed flask was shown to contain over 20 amino acids.

Futher experiments used conditions such as those in deep-sea vents and volcanos. These experiments yielded similar results; 22 amino acids, 5 amines and hydroxylated molecules.

You mention probability. Yes, it is very unlikely in one instance that life would form, however if this was happening for millions of years all over the hot springs, deep-sea vents or in areas of high thunderstorms the probability suddenly becomes very high.

The probability of me winning the lottery is so small, however if I buy 10 million tickets it suddenly increases by 10,000,000 times that I could win.

Small steps to make life. Not just throwing all the compounds of life together and expecting an organism to form.

Zaius137 · Apr 11, 2012

Guy1 said:
I don't know what you're going on about here really.

Now I know this is bull. Nobody that has even a crude understanding of statistics, would dare say something like this. We can't calculate the probability of life originating because we only have a sample size of one. Stat 101: A sample size of 1 does not a statistic make.

I have a question for you though. What relevant qualifications do you posses?

Then you believe in magic… because a sample size of one does not make reproducible evidence. Claims about a spontaneous origin for life are nonsense. There are ventures to guess the probability of life even though the evolutionist cannot produce even a sensible suggestion.

I have a God and you have unscientific speculation. I claim the higher ground.

A human brain gives me the qualifications to question nonsense.

Guy1 · Apr 11, 2012

Zaius137 said:
Then you believe in magic because a sample size of one does not make reproducible evidence. Claims about a spontaneous origin for life are nonsense. There are ventures to guess the probability of life even though the evolutionist cannot produce even a sensible suggestion.

Foolhardy ventures that attempt to guage the probability of life from one data point. You don't seem to get that we constantly create the building blocks for life in the laboratory.

Zaius137 said:
I have a God and you have unscientific speculation. I claim the higher ground.

Because clearly a god is a scientific statement. As opposed to the idea that one can recreate life by exposing certain elements to conditions found in an early earth , subjecting said idea to scrutiny and keeping it on the basis that it is grounded in reality.

Zaius137 said:
A human brain gives me the qualifications to question nonsense.

Nobody in their right mind would accept that "Qualification"

Zaius137 · Apr 11, 2012

thompsonb24 said:
Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment or any of the subsequent experiments which followed in fashion?

A primitive atmosphere of molecules such as ammonia, hydrogen, water and methane were subjected to currents of electrons, the molecules reacted over time and were examined to be amino acids and other simple biological molecules.such as lipids and carbohydrates. In 2007 the sealed flask was shown to contain over 20 amino acids.

Futher experiments used conditions such as those in deep-sea vents and volcanos. These experiments yielded similar results; 22 amino acids, 5 amines and hydroxylated molecules.

You mention probability. Yes, it is very unlikely in one instance that life would form, however if this was happening for millions of years all over the hot springs, deep-sea vents or in areas of high thunderstorms the probability suddenly becomes very high.

The probability of me winning the lottery is so small, however if I buy 10 million tickets it suddenly increases by 10,000,000 times that I could win.

Small steps to make life. Not just throwing all the compounds of life together and expecting an organism to form.

The silent do eventually speak.

Yes the Miller-Urey experiment produced some amino acids and a few peptides that were entirely racemic and exhibited no life relevancy. But many components were missing; from what I remember there were no complex sugars.

Let me stop you right there about the early earth conditions because I just finished rebuking similar statements with the faint sun paradox.

You have no conception of the scales of probability you are talking about; it is a joke even attempting to compare a loto wining probability I will include the following

What follows may be an oversimplified example (I know it is so don't bother) but the scale is valid. Take an enormous number like 1.0 times 10 to the 415th number of atoms. Place them in a Trader Joes bag, if that was possible, and mark a single atom that is placed with the others. You have a special set of tweezers that you may pick out a single atom from any ware in that bag. This would place a single chance of a correct selection at 1 in 10 to the 415th. But you are allowed to make selections from the bag once every second for 10 to the 25th seconds (a billion times longer than the age of the universe since the big bang). This still leaves you with one last choice from a pool of atoms (10 to the 415th 10 to the 25th) is still approximately 10 to the 415th (a negligible amount of atoms were removed). Well this to me does not seem likely given there is estimated to be 10 to the 80th atoms in the know universe. The single next selection must take place from a volume of at least 5 times the magnitude of atoms in the entire universe. In a single universe where is that atom to be found? Maybe it is in one of the silicon atoms in that screen in front of you or maybe a hydrogen atom in the Crab Nebula?

Greg1234 · Apr 11, 2012

Guy1 said:
Foolhardy ventures that attempt to guage the probability of life from one data point. You don't seem to get that we constantly create the building blocks for life in the laboratory.

Forget getting the building blocks, we give that to you. Puncture a cell and place its contents in a ph-worthy solvent. Or blend a frog, completely disassemble all its components, and place them in a bowl. Now you have everything you need so you don't have to try making them. Put the contents outside in the sun and watch what happens.

Or you can take a ready-made, live fly (trust me, it doesn't get any better than this) and submit it repeatedly to radiation. After each generation, there will be some random mutations but they wouldn't be so bad that the flies won't reproduce. Continue to apply radiation, continue to let them reproduce, and continue to let the random mutations accumulate. Then watch what happens (luckily cells don't adapt through spontaneous means so you are here today).

Guy1 · Apr 11, 2012

Greg1234 said:
Forget getting the building blocks, we give that to you. Puncture a cell and place its contents in a ph-worthy solvent. Or blend a frog, completely disassemble all its components, and place them in a bowl. Now you have everything you need so you don't have to try making them. Put the contents outside in the sun and watch what happens.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "Making life out of it's components" and "Killing life to somehow put it back together"

Greg1234 said:
Or you can take a ready-made, live fly (trust me, it doesn't get any better than this) and submit it repeatedly to radiation. After each generation, there will be some random mutations but they wouldn't be so bad that the flies won't reproduce. Continue to apply radiation, continue to let them reproduce, and continue to let the random mutations accumulate. Then watch what happens (luckily cells don't adapt through spontaneous means so you are here today).

We don't need to subject them to anything to force mutations.

bjt2024 · Apr 11, 2012

Zaius137 said:
The silent do eventually speak.

Yes the Miller-Urey experiment produced some amino acids and a few peptides that were entirely racemic and exhibited no life relevancy. But many components were missing; from what I remember there were no complex sugars.

Let me stop you right there about the early earth conditions because I just finished rebuking similar statements with the faint sun paradox.

You have no conception of the scales of probability you are talking about; it is a joke even attempting to compare a loto wining probability I will include the following

What follows may be an oversimplified example (I know it is so don't bother) but the scale is valid. Take an enormous number like 1.0 times 10 to the 415th number of atoms. Place them in a Trader Joes bag, if that was possible, and mark a single atom that is placed with the others. You have a special set of tweezers that you may pick out a single atom from any ware in that bag. This would place a single chance of a correct selection at 1 in 10 to the 415th. But you are allowed to make selections from the bag once every second for 10 to the 25th seconds (a billion times longer than the age of the universe since the big bang). This still leaves you with one last choice from a pool of atoms (10 to the 415th 10 to the 25th) is still approximately 10 to the 415th (a negligible amount of atoms were removed). Well this to me does not seem likely given there is estimated to be 10 to the 80th atoms in the know universe. The single next selection must take place from a volume of at least 5 times the magnitude of atoms in the entire universe. In a single universe where is that atom to be found? Maybe it is in one of the silicon atoms in that screen in front of you or maybe a hydrogen atom in the Crab Nebula?

Yes they did form a racemic mixture but this is irrelevent if there is no needed for enzyme-specificity to favour a L or D enantiomer.

There were no complex sugars because the formation of say glycogen requires multistage enzyme-controlled reactions. However simple sugars are enough for basic biochemical processes. The first forms of life would not have to store sugars, only use them in there raw forms.

Please try and refute me about the general consensus on the early Earth conditions.

You seem to think that all life originated from one reaction? If this was the case I would agree that the chances of it originating are infinatly small. However, what about many similar reactions happening all across the world forming similar compounds over millions of years considering the amount of time it takes for covalent bonds to form?

verysincere · Apr 11, 2012

Zaius137 said:
I have a God and you have unscientific speculation. I claim the higher ground.

A human brain gives me the qualifications to question nonsense.

As a Bible-believing Christ-follower who affirms the teachings of the Bible and who respects the diligent efforts of scientists to inform and educate us concerning the wonders and mysteries of what many of us consider to be God's created universe, I sincerely apologize to the scientific community, and the human race in general, for the condescending and disrespectful declaration above and any and all of the similar verbiage emanating from and/or accompanying same in all prior and associated posts therewith and henceforth.

The views and attitudes quoted and so expressed above are solely those of Zaius137 and should not be considered to be the official position of the Bible, its prophets, patriarchs, judges, ark passengers, Canaanites, Baal worshippers, cows of Bashan, angels, demons, Pharisees, Sadducees, Church Fathers, hermit monks, theologians, exegetes, apostles, saints, witnesses, or amanuenses nor attributable or even bearing the slightest resemblance in any way to the inerrant teachings of Jesus.
_____________________________

The READER of the aforementioned diatribes of Zaius137 agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the authors of the Bible, their agents, employees, members of the ministry, whether ordained or no, affiliates, successors and assigns from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, embarrassments, humiliations, tauntings, ridicules, guilt-by-associations, random whinings, regrets, frustrations, post-traumatic stresses, loss of IQ points, heartbreaks of psoriasis, static cling, dandruff, excessive sweating and/or body odors, neural necrosis, social ostracisms, family rejections including but not restricted to disinheritances and/or abandonment threats, losses of citizenships and affiliations or importation licenses, bad reviews, open mockery, gastric reflux, cerebral deterioration or paralysis, fines, causes-of-action deficiencies, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses) based upon, arising out of, or otherwise related to READER considering, investigating, recalling, remembering, humoring, or taking seriously in any way the thoughts, opinions, and random collections of words posted herein and heretofore. Amen.

The postings of Zaius137 are the thoughts and opinions of the author. Any resemblance to the actual teachings of Jesus is purely coincidental. No actual doctrines of the Bible were harmed in the posting of this satire.

Exceptions, emendations, and waivers applicable to the above may not be amended in anyway without the express written permission of Major League Baseball.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

.

verysincere · Apr 11, 2012

Zaius137 said:
You have no conception of the scales of probability you are talking about; it is a joke even attempting to compare a loto wining probability I will include the following

I'm amazed that my Christian brethren struggle so with probabilities. Why do they find it so disturbing that the universe would involve low probability events (especially when the vast size and age of the universe easily makes "improbable" events quite probable)?

But the Bible itself tell us that God is not opposed to using "chance" for his purposes. According to scripture, the roll of every pair of dice ("the lots") is determined by the Lord. So why do so many Christians get bent out of shape when science observes and describes "chance" within the operations of the universe?

Science is simply the study of the evidence which God has placed within his creation. (Whether or not a particular scientist happens to be a theist is irrelevant.) Science is METHODOLOGICALLY naturalistic. It focuses on natural processes because that is its very definition and that it tools and procedures ONLY operate and deal with natural phenomena. So why is it a problem if science investigates and proposes various hypotheses about the origins of life?

After all, the Bible itself describe ABIOGENESIS: "God formed the man from the dust of the ground." In other words, that describes a living organism derived from non-living ingredients. (Biological life from non-biological raw materials. The Bible states a concept which many cultures did not understand till many centuries later: living organisms are composed of the basic elements of the earth's crust, not some "magical" life-force types of materials unique to life.)

So Science and the Bible both describe abiogenesis. No conflict.

Likewise, science investigates the role of "chance" and improbable events in the natural world. Likewise, the Bible says that "chance" is part of reality and that the Creator has mastery over chance and improbabilities. So where is the conflict?

It all comes down to the confusion of many Christians in not understanding that science is PROCEDURALLY and BY DEFINITION naturalistic --- but that has NOTHING to do with an "anti-God" bias or some kind of "denial of God." (Do geometric proofs "deny protractors" and measurement devices just because the require doing everything with a straight-edge and a compass?)

Just a little bit of education would spare us (i.e. the Christian community) a great deal of embarrassment when our ignorance is continually exposed in Internet forums. (Please. Let's end this pointless and unnecessary war that too many of our Christian brethren endlessly pursue against science and scientific theories and hypotheses. All we succeed in doing is convincing the general public that we are opposed to evidence, reason, education, and common sense.)

.

JanetReed · Apr 12, 2012

verysincere said:
Just a little bit of education would spare us (i.e. the Christian community) a great deal of embarrassment when our ignorance is continually exposed in Internet forums. (Please. Let's end this pointless and unnecessary war that too many of our Christian brethren endlessly pursue against science and scientific theories and hypotheses. All we succeed in doing is convincing the general public that we are opposed to evidence, reason, education, and common sense.)

Well said.

JoeyArnold · Apr 12, 2012

Guy1 said:
You don't seem to get that we constantly create the building blocks for life in the laboratory.

What are the building blocks of life?

LOCO · Apr 12, 2012

thompsonb24 said:
Hi,

I'm an atheist and a genetic/microbiological scientist and because this is a Christian forum I've opened this thread so anyone who wishes to know more about Evolution or my beliefs or why I hold them can ask me questions accordingly.

I would however like a respectful debate, but feel free to counteract anything I say if you disagree. I will try my hardest to remain respectful. Thanks

OK people, ask away.

What are your beliefs?

JanetReed · Apr 12, 2012

LOCO said:
What are your beliefs?

If you mean religious beliefs he doesn't have any because his icon says he's an Atheist.
Any beliefs he has about other things such as politics mean nothing here.

Answering any questions on Evolution

Senior Member

The Librarian

Senior Member

Real science and faith are compatible.

Attachments

Real science and faith are compatible.

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Real science and faith are compatible.

Senior Member

Real science and faith are compatible.

In the beginning was El

Senior Member

Active Member

Exegete/Linguist

Exegete/Linguist

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Church Militant

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency