Why can't anyone see this, its like a great delusion.

[Zoii]

1. That's not what current models for abiogenesis propose.
2. The majority of life on earth is prokaryotic and thus does not have organelles.
3. Prokaryotes reproduce just fine mostly by fission.

Yes sorry your right but even those first unicellular prokaryotes had a spontaneously forming cell membrane that entrapped nucleic acids and protein..... yep all possible of course....it just isnt being observed in nature though...which is why it opens the door for my doubts.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes sorry your right but even those first unicellular prokaryotes had a spontaneously forming cell membrane that entrapped nucleic acids and protein..... yep all possible of course....it just isnt being observed in nature though...which is why it opens the door for my doubts.

Are your doubts a result of your desire for the Bible to be true?

 

[Zoii]

Are your doubts a result of your desire for the Bible to be true?

My doubts are around the question of... How did this all happen. Now I have strong beliefs, which tomorrow may all change if I'm introduced to new evidence. I do not accept belief sets which are locked because it acts as a barrier to admit you are wrong or indeed know nothing at all. I want to absorb and critique all evidence and theories

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Might have been a matter of the fact that people in the US divide classification into 6 kingdoms, splitting Monera into Archaea and Bacteria. Thus, to anyone that gets their taxonomy education in the US, Monera isn't a kingdom at all.

We studies archea and bacteria (and eukarya) under the 3 domains of life. Good to know.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes sorry your right but even those first unicellular prokaryotes had a spontaneously forming cell membrane that entrapped nucleic acids and protein..... yep all possible of course....it just isnt being observed in nature though...which is why it opens the door for my doubts.

It can't be observed in nature now, because now there is extant life, just about everywhere. Prebiotic chemicals and any other form of precursor would get snapped up as welcome food.

 

[Zoii]

It can't be observed in nature now, because now there is extant life, just about everywhere. Prebiotic chemicals and any other form of precursor would get snapped up as welcome food.

That isnt an explanation that has been researched and confirmed as far as I know. The only objective comment to be made at this point is that spontaneous formation of single cells is not observed in nature. The "why" isnt yet confirmed though theories abound, bringing it back to the original OP - the spontaneous formation of a cell membrane capable of intracellular protection yet selective diffusion and active transport, with intracellular contents of nucleic acids capable of forming DNA and proteins. Thats where the Big Ticket mystery is - I want to be around in 10 000 years and get the answer - annoying I cant have it confirmed now.... so thats why on that particular point my door is open on intelligent design.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You're still dishing out arrogance and disdain instead of thinking. You missed the key point I illustrated with the Einstein example.

I did not.
Einstein didn't just say "you're wrong".
Instead, he said "you're wrong... and I'll show you how" and then subsequently demonstrated how they were wrong and how he was right.

Einstein didn't simply make a claim and leave it at that.

I'm not sure he had even attained his humble patent office job yet when this happened, but no one had any reason to think he was anyone. Who was he at that point to challenge this scientist who had published?

Irrelevant. The point is that he didn't just leave it at a claim.
He demonstrated his ideas. It's not enough to just argue.

Einstein, the very person you honor as one of the best physicists, at that point had no reason to base his challenge on credentials. He looked only at the facts of the case and challenged on logic.

Which is not enough. That's what I'm saying.

He should be an inspiration to us all.

If you wish to take example from Einstein, then you're going to have to do a wee bit more then simply tell biologists or geneticists, that they are wrong.

I'm unimpressed with the level of arrogance displayed in this thread and the refusal to engage the facts of the case as young, pre-credential Einstein did.

It seems to me that you are using the word "arrogant" to just describe every person that simply doesn't agree with you.

Can you back up some of that arrogance with a plausible explanation of how new proteins (or more specifically, new genes) come to be?

Gene duplication followed by further mutations.
Done.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You're referencing a typo in a text book.

You didn't look up where the term came from, did you?

It's not a "typo". It's a find/replace error.
They took a YEC book and simply used the "find / replace" function to replace all instances of "creationism" by "intelligent design" and "creationist" by "intelligent design proponents". It went wrong and resulted in the term "cdesign proponentsists" instead.

This term is the bulletproof evidence that ID has nothing at all to do with science... rather, it proves that ID is simply religious creationism disguised in a labcoat.

It's the epitome of dishonesty.

That does NOT define Intelligent Design (ID). I can't tell if you're playing dumb or if you really don't know anything at all about ID.
The Discovery Institute seems to be the torchbearer for ID.

"cdesign proponentsists" was brought to us by the very people at the discovery institute. An exposed bunch of liars and frauds.

They say this in their FAQ (bold added.):
ID has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

They lied, as demonstrated by the whole cdesign proponentsists debacle.

You might want to read the leaked "wedge document" as well.

It tells quite a different story.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ID proponents recognized that with the advances in molecular biology, science alone can soundly make the case that life was designed. Do you really want to stand on a political decision to determine your science? If the judge in the Dover case declared Boyle's law was not science, would you accept his verdict? You accept the word of a politically appointed judge over the facts of science.

The political judge (who's himself a conservative christian, btw - talk about "telling") based his decision on the evidence. Evidence like cdesign proponentsists and the leaked wedge document.

These guys are exposed frauds and liars, there really is no way around it.

Sorry if that is news to you, but it is what it is.

Michael Behe, one of the cdesign proponentsists there, actually even testified under oath that if ID is to be considered science, then the same goes for astrology. Astrology. You know. Horoscopes and stuff.

During his testimony, it became clear that the definition of "scientific theory" that he uses, is different from the definition that just about every actual scientist uses.
He deliberatly altered the definition, for the sole purpose of being able to call ID a "scientific theory". But under his altered definition, astrology also counts as such.

In other words: in order to be able to call ID "science", one has to change the definition of "science" so that it also accomodates pseudo-science.

Take a hint!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes sorry your right but even those first unicellular prokaryotes had a spontaneously forming cell membrane that entrapped nucleic acids and protein..... yep all possible of course....it just isnt being observed in nature though...which is why it opens the door for my doubts.

What exactly is it that you doubt about?
Because last I checked, abiogenesis is a work in progress and there is as of yet no conclusive answer on how life could come to be, although there are many pieces of the puzzle already present - a few crucial ones are still missing.

So we can say that at this point, the origins of life are unknown.

So, what do you "doubt"? That it is unknown?
:-S

 

[Zoii]

What exactly is it that you doubt about?
Because last I checked, abiogenesis is a work in progress and there is as of yet no conclusive answer on how life could come to be, although there are many pieces of the puzzle already present - a few crucial ones are still missing.

So we can say that at this point, the origins of life are unknown.

So, what do you "doubt"? That it is unknown?
:-S

 

[Zoii]

Just that

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just that

just what?

 

[Job 33:6]

OK, good. Now we have some new base pairs in place, though this gene is the same as the original, not the new one we need. With no other information we can guess that only one in twenty amino acids will be correct for the completely new gene we need, assuming it's the right length.

Any suggestion I could make to get from here to the correct amino acids will sound directed. How can we add a new gene that performs a specific function, that is, a new specific gene?

You asked how new genes were made and you received an answer. As far as taking that new gene and changing it to something different from what it was copied from, there are point mutations, insertions, deletions, frame shifts, more duplications, etc. There are many different types of mutations. Some only affect small amounts of the genome, some affect larger parts.

 

[xianghua]

As KomatiiteBif says Duplication is just one way that DNA can change significantly enough to produce new Genes.

think about a self replicating matter. how much time it will take to turn it into a robot? can it be by a small steps? also consider the sequence space for a tipical gene- 4^1000. so even if we had about 10^50 tries its still nothing compare to the whole space.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

think about a self replicating matter. how much time it will take to turn it into a robot? can it be by a small steps? also consider the sequence space for a tipical gene- 4^1000. so even if we had about 10^50 tries its still nothing compare to the whole space.

Well, it took about 3.8 billion years to get from the first self-replicating matter to us "human" and those "Penguin" robots.... is that what you're after?

 

[Ophiolite]

just what?

I think he may be saying he's run out of cogent responses.

 

[loveofourlord]

OK fair enough, maybe I'm just used to being mocked on the subject so have learnt to perceive criticism as that.

When you say its not a compelling argument, how do you man exactly. On the basis of rationality? Or on the basis of science, or what exactly. If my argument is not incorrect then its definitely compelling on both rationality and scientific. Darwin said it himself "if there is no definitive answer we draw to the closest possibility". 1 in 10 to the 164th power is surely not the most probable answer.

On the basis least for me that arguments like yours show 0 understanding of the actual science, it might help convince us if yuou were not arguing things unrelated.

For instance all the arguments for dna go out the window when all it takes is a first class in chemistry to know that chemistry is anything but random, if DNA came abouit through chemistry then it's inevitable if the right conditions arise. It's like saying a crystal couldn't exist, because the chances of all the right ingredients randomly combining is impossible. Except it's not.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes they do! Science is the interpretation of something observed. If 1 in 10 to the 50th pwr is accepted to have a "zero probability" and a case against evolution arose being 1 in 10 to the 40,000th pwr probable. Then their is surely a valid argument for incredulity there somewhere. The science becomes unsupported and even theory has no strength behind it. If big numbers have no place in the chance of evolution then fine. But well known scientists etc are the ones coming up with these interpretations not me.

thats the chance of it happening, not the chance of it having happened. Plus it ignores reality of.

A) it's chemistry so not random
B) thats the chance of a single event happening, but given the size of the universe you have it possibly happening 1000 times every square inch of a planet every 1000th of a second that has right conditions possibly thousands of square miles of area that fits the build, billions of planets with the right conditions..... all this over billions of years....oh look I think we just exceeded your number by a large amount.

 

[xianghua]

That isnt an explanation that has been researched and confirmed as far as I know. The only objective comment to be made at this point is that spontaneous formation of single cells is not observed in nature. The "why" isnt yet confirmed though theories abound, bringing it back to the original OP - the spontaneous formation of a cell membrane capable of intracellular protection yet selective diffusion and active transport, with intracellular contents of nucleic acids capable of forming DNA and proteins. Thats where the Big Ticket mystery is - I want to be around in 10 000 years and get the answer - annoying I cant have it confirmed now.... so thats why on that particular point my door is open on intelligent design.

its basically true for every molecular machine exist in nature. so the same question is true for evolution too. take a look at those machines:

(Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U)

or that:

(VCAC: Cellular Processes: Electron Transport Chain: Advanced Look: ATP Synthase)

or that:

(June Newsletter: Kinesin Motor Proteins and Neurodegeneration)