This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.� This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
Are these scientists all frauds?
Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?
Are they all being dishonest?
Is their view on the matter unscientific?
Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?
Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?
Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?
Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?
Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?
Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?
Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?
Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?
JoeyKnothead wrote:
How does the act of manipulating DNA show it ain't made of chemicals?
I give up Joey. Tell me. Or was that a rhetorical question?
I contend that by sniping the remainder of my post from which you got that question, you are deliberately and with a bit of malice trying to remove the context from my words.
When you can actually start addressing me without such a tactic, I'll be glad to point you through the thread, so you can find my posts and gain the context of why I'd ask you that.
After your request for empirical data, I find your feigned ignorance here to be highly questionable and not deserving of any further response until you display a willingness to debate in an honorable fashion.
THEMAYAN wrote:
...
Take the time to read the threads carefully so as to avoid confusion.
Oh, that's rich.
Why don't you look back and see which part of my referenced post you snipped, and didn't answer.
You asked for empirical data regarding life. I've shown that chemicals and physics, things you mentioned, are the only things about life for which we have empirical data.
Now you feign ignorance as to why I'd ask the question presented to you, while deliberately and willfully snipping the surrounding context?
What a farce.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
Radios are much less complex than humans and cant even self replicate. So if abiogenesis and macro evolution is correct, then it should be much easier to create and or evolve, but again I wouldn't put my money on it.
Well, no. According to evolution, something that can't self-replicate, like a radio, cannot evolve.
One more reason why the theory as well as the notion the physics and chemistry alone can account for life is so absurd. The theoretical proto cell/precursor to first living cell was supposedly non living and could not replicate itself until later and eventually chemical evolution allowed it to become life, and as for radios, yes thats right, they cant replicate. The point being because they're much less complex, besides it was you who believed that physics and chemistry alone could account for radios naturally per your blue print analogy.
RE to Pax
I would say, that's crazy,
I've seen builders build houses, they don't assemble themselves
.
Yeah I agree. Me too. That is pretty crazy,.... and it would be crazy because I also know that it requires an intelligent or agent agents to build something as complex as a house which by the way is also much less complex than even the simplest living cell, and by orders of magnitude.
Quote:
Does this sound silly to you?
Yeah it sure does, very silly.
Good. Now you know how I feel when I'm asked to believe in something that defies all common sense.
Actually, I didn't say living bacteria don't have DNA or that they are not living organism; What I was saying is bacteria aren't living once they've had their DNA removed.
[The New York Times]To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,� said David Baltimore, a leading geneticist at Caltech. Dr. Baltimore described the result as “a technical tour de force� but not breakthrough science, but just a matter of scale…. “He has not created life, only mimicked it,� Dr. Baltimore said .Indeed, it is easy to exaggerate what Venter and his team actually did. They modified or replaced only 12 genes of the entire genome and used pre-existing (organic) cells. Synthetic DNA has already been inserted into living cells many times before, albeit on a smaller scale.In addition, many experts note that the experimenters got a big boost by placing the synthetic genome in a preexisting cell, which was naturally inclined to make sense of the transplanted DNA and to turn genes on and off. Thus, they say, it’s not accurate to label the experiment’s product a true “synthetic cell.�
Quote:
Yes thats right, but hey man your willing to try it to create an experiment that can prove it.
It's quite alright, it's already been proved to my satisifaction that physics alone is enough to explain radios, and that physics and chemistry is enough to explain life.
Can you share this empirical data? Don't hide this from the rest of humanity. There are people out there who are seriously spending millions and dedicating their lives to try to prove this hypothesis. Please share it. I know you're not gullible enough to think that the proof is based on just invoking the power of physics and chemistry. So again I ask. Please show us the data that confirms this age old question of how chemistry and physics alone accomplished all this.
What's wrong with the physics only explaination that of electromagnetic waves?
Nothing. In fact I think its great explanation. The big question is, without a universe with the physical ratios, parameters and constants which are exquisitely fine tuned and so fine tuned we could not have things like the laws and principles that allow for electromagnetics. Again so fine tuned that Rodger Penrose calculates the initial condition be so specialized as to have a 1 10^10(123 of happening on its own. In contrast there are only 10^80 electrons in the entire universe, and there is also now wide acceptance among cosmologist and physicist that the universe is indeed fine tuned for life. Another way to put it is that the specialized conditions of our universe make it possible for life like ours to exist on this planet. If you're ever interested in a list of these ratios parameters and cited sources just let me know.
The overwhelming appearance of design has even caused atheist like Rodger Penrose and others to say….
Penrose
I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance
Paul Davies
It seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose"
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Suppose I showed you a house and told you that all the nails, screws, lumber, insulation, plaster, shingles, concrete, trim mouldings, doors, windows and whatever else were in that house, just happened to be in the right place at the right time and assembled themselves into the beautiful building you are now looking upon.
What would you say to that?
They usually say something like "In trillions of years, it's possible that all the nails and screws and boards and concrete will fall in the exact right spot with the right fit."
I'd place my bets that we'd be more likely to have a team of Monkeys with typewriters hammer out all of Shakespeare's works, which I've actually heard some say could likely happen.
Here's a thought, let's wait and see what people actually do say and then respond to that! I realize it's harder than making up their arguments for them, but on the other hand it's also usually more effective.
Well, what would you say?
What I did say, in what way is a house analogous to a universe, and how do you know?
It seems to me that we know what a house is for, and all its parts contribute to that purpose. What is a universe for, and how do you know?
Ok. You'd rather not say. Its a free country.
I think it is being questioned as to why your request is even relevant. I believe that if you can show it is relevant, you will get the answers that you desire.
Can you show any relevancy?
For example: It seems to me that we know what a house is for, and all its parts contribute to that purpose. What is a universe for, and how do you know?
Who said anything about a universe? The topic is on Darwinism, and Darwinism says nothing about the universe.
Now Darwinism would have me believe that a bunch of nucleotides and enzymes and liptides and proteins and various other things just happened to all come together at the right time and place and form themselves into a cell.
So, analogy of a house is even simpler than what Darwinism proposes, for the house does not become alive, but the Darwinist asks me to believe that the various pre-biotic elements do indeed come to life.
In other words, it is far easier to believe that a house just assembles itself, than it is to believe that a bunch of stuff floating around in some primordial soup assembled itself.
Microevolution is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.
--
Here is the definition of Macro Evolution:
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.
--
Here is the definition of speciation:
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages. Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.
Electromagnetism is responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electromagnetism is also the force which holds electrons and protons together inside atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions between the electrons inside and between atoms.[/quote]
In short, you can't have a living organism without the electromagnetic force to which is one of the prime drivers to self-organizing molecules. And we can look into Organic compounds vs inorganic compounds:
scientists have discovered that simple peptides can organize into bi-layer membranes. The finding suggests a “missing link� between the pre-biotic Earth’s chemical inventory and the organizational scaffolding essential to life.
“This is a boon to our understanding of large, structural assemblies of molecules,� says Emory Chemistry Chair David Lynn, who helped lead the effort, which were collaborations of the departments of chemistry, biology and physics. “We’ve proved that peptides can organize as bi-layers, and we’ve generated the first, real-time imaging of the self-assembly process. We can actually watch in real-time as these nano-machines make themselves.�
in 1828, a chemist named Friedrich Wöhler accidently created urea. Urea was a compound that mammals produced to get rid of excess nitrogen. Urea is secreted in their urine. Friedrich created it using inorganic (non-living) salts. Everyone was surprised, but chemists then knew that it was possible to create chemicals found in the body using chemicals from the ground or air (non-living sources). So now organic compounds were not defined as only those compounds from organisms, but compounds based on carbon.
The following below is an example electromagnetic phenomenon:
I will give you examples of how information theory works in biology and evolution. This falls under Physical information theory and information theory that deals with any pattern of information that influences the transformation of other patterns into new patterns of information. Here information is not lost, it just simply changes value, function, purpose, state, or behavior. So All of which is below are examples of physical information theory. This includes Chaos theory in regards to "sefl-organization"
Strong diffusional mixing and short delivery times typical for micrometer and sub-micrometer reaction volumes lead to a special situations of self oscillation where the turnover times of individual enzyme molecules become the largest characteristic time scale of the chemical kinetics. Under these conditions, populations of cross-regulating allosteric enzymes form molecular networks that exhibit various kinds of self-organized coherent collective dynamics.
Everything in existence has pattern from a chaotic system with feedback in which order comes from a system of chaos. All this states is that a pattern can lead to the change of another pattern should said pattern influence and exert pressure on the other as noted below:
* "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate the pattern
* what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things, or things of representation and value. Example: genetic or, genetically transmitted information.
* Computing data as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.
* a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, energy, matter., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.
So lets look at a direct example:
We can also go here under my evolution thread concerning Prions to understand more of what material-physical information is or means, and how it's related to evolution:
We can prove physical information theory and evolution in non-living molecules as We can in living molecules. Prions are non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt to their environment. JuÂpiÂter, Fla discovered that these Prions can develop many different kinds of mutations that help prions develop defenses to withstand against threats. Even viruses that are considered non-living but active matter that can also evolve. However, viruses have a commonality with life known as DNA, and Prions do not. Prions consist of proteins that are composed of amino acids. The mutations are different folding arrangements of the protein molecules that achieve different material physical/informational characteristics much like that of DNA.. These foldÂing arrangements play an evÂoÂluÂtionÂary role in priÂons. This follows the same premise behind the driving force commonly found in cases of co-evolution and mutualism. Sorry creationists, but Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest isn't the only driving force behind evolution. The fact that non-life or non-living active matter evolves, also means that life evolves. Evolution is proven in by co-evolution, mutation, and simple observations of existing wild life. This shows the deeper communicative connection between living active matter, non-living active matter, and inactive matter.
Furthermore, we can get even deeper into information theory and evolution by linking plant and animal into one little critter known as the Green Sea Slug. Here we can observe an example of the deeper communicative process of evolution!. The Green Sea slug can actually steal photosynthesizing organelles and genes from algae. This little slug can produce it's own chlorophyll. Also, Elysia and its genetic kleptomania is yet another example of animals undergoing the sort of horizontal gene transfer that is so commonplace in bacteria to where we can see how the flow of information is a material physical process.
Support Evolution by Natural Selection (statements posted on respected websites):
Alabama Academy of Science
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Commission on Science Education
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Physical Society
American Psychological Association
American Society for Microbology
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Society of Parasitologists
American Sociological Association
Association for Women Geoscientists
Association of Southeastern Biologists
Australian Academy of Science
Biophysical Society
Botanical Society of America
California Academy of Sciences
Committee for the Anthropology of Science, Technology and Computing
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Georgia Academy of Science
History of Science Society
Idaho Scientists for Quality Science Education
Illinois Federation of Teachers
InterAcademy Panel
Iowa Academy of Science
Kansas Academy of Science
Kentucky Academy of Science
Kentucky Paleontological Society
Louisiana Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
National Association of Biology Teachers
New Mexico Academy of Sciences
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
North American Benthological Society
North Carolina Academy of Science
Ohio Academy of Science
Ohio Math and Science Coalition
Pennsylvania Academy of Science
Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists
Philosophy of Science Association
Reaearch!America
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada - Ottawa Centre
Royal Society
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Canada, Academy of Science
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter
Society for Amateur Scientists
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society of Neuroscience
Society for Organic Petrology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Physics Students
Society for Systematic Biologists
Society of Vertabrate Paleontology
Southern Anthropological Society
Tallahassee Scientific Society
Tennessee Academy of Science
Tenessee Darwin Coalition
The Paleontological Society
Virginia Academy of Science
West Virginia Academy of Science
American Society of Plant Taxonomists
American Statistical Association
Affiliation of Christian Geologists
Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Science
Manchester Museum at the University of Manchester (UK)
Science Museum of Minnesota
Union for Reform Judaism
Association of Science-Technology Centers
European Network of Science Centres and Museums (Ecsite)
International Committee for Museums and Collections of Natural History (NATHIST)
Australian Museum
The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Museum of the Earth (Ithaca, New York)
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
New York State Museum
NABT (National Association of Biology Teachers) Position Statement on Teaching Evolution
The frequently-quoted declaration of Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973) that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in the science of biology. As such, evolution provides the scientific framework that explains both the history of life and the continuing change in the populations of organisms in response to environmental challenges and other factors. Scientists who have carefully evaluated the evidence overwhelmingly support the conclusion that both the principle of evolution itself and its mechanisms best explain what has caused the variety of organisms alive now and in the past.
The principle of biological evolution states that all living things have arisen from common ancestors. Some lineages diverge while others go extinct as a result of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and other well-studied mechanisms. The patterns of similarity and diversity in extant and fossil organisms, combined with evidence and explanations provided by molecular biology, developmental biology, systematics, and geology provide extensive examples of and powerful support for evolution. Even as biologists continue to study and consider evolution, they agree that all living things share common ancestors and that the process of evolutionary change through time is driven by natural mechanisms.
Evolutionary biology rests on the same scientific methodologies the rest of science uses, appealing only to natural events and processes to describe and explain phenomena in the natural world. Science teachers must reject calls to account for the diversity of life or describe the mechanisms of evolution by invoking non-naturalistic or supernatural notions, whether called "creation science," "scientific creationism," "intelligent design theory," or similar designations. Ideas such as these are outside the scope of science and should not be presented as part of the science curriculum. These notions do not adhere to the shared scientific standards of evidence gathering and interpretation.
Just as nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, nothing in biology education makes sense without reference to and thorough coverage of the principle and mechanisms provided by the science of evolution. Therefore, teaching biology in an effective, detailed, and scientifically and pedagogically honest manner requires that evolution be a major theme throughout the life science curriculum both in classroom discussions and in laboratory investigations.
Biological evolution must be presented in the same way that it is understood within the scientific community: as a well-accepted principle that provides the foundation to understanding the natural world. Evolution should not be misrepresented as 'controversial,' or in need of 'critical analysis' or special attention for any supposed 'strength or weakness' any more than other scientific ideas are. Biology educators at all levels must work to encourage the development of and support for standards, curricula, textbooks, and other instructional frameworks that prominently include evolution and its mechanisms and that refrain from confusing non-scientific with scientific explanations in science instruction.
Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors, 2011. Revised 1997, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2011 (Original Statement 1995). Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution, 1998; The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1998.
Evolution Theory in modern medicine:
There is literally a boat load of evolutionary science in medicine.
Evolutionary medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. It provides a complementary scientific approach to the present mechanistic explanations that dominatemedical science, and particularly modern medical education. Researchers in the field of evolutionary medicine have suggested that evolutionary biology should not simply be an optional topic in medical school, but instead should be taught as one of the basic medical sciences.
The evolution of pathogens in terms of their virulence, resistance to antibiotics, and subversion of an individual’s immune system.
The processes, constraints and trade-offs of human evolution.
The evolved responses that enable individuals to protect, heal and recuperate themselves from infections and injuries such as immunity, fever, and sickness behavior, and the processes that regulate their deployment to maximize fitness.
How past adaptation of early humans to their ancestral environment now affects contemporary humans with their different diet, life expectancy, degree of physical exercise, and hygiene.
We also have this:
Antibiotic resistance
Microorganisms evolve resistance through natural selection acting upon random mutation. Once a gene conferring resistance arises to counteract an antibiotic, not only can that bacteria thrive, but it can spread that gene to other types of bacteria through horizontal gene transfer of genetic information by plasmid exchange. It is unclear whether the genetic information responsible for antibiotic resistance typically arises from an actual mutation, or is already present in the gene pool of the population of the organism in question.
The effect of organisms upon their host can vary from being symbioticcommensals that are beneficial, to pathogens that reduce fitness. Many pathogens produce virulence factors that directly cause disease, or manipulate their host to allow them to thrive and spread. Since a pathogen’s fitness is determined by its success in transmitting offspring to other hosts, it was thought at one time, that virulence moderated and it evolved toward commensality. However, this view is now questioned by Ewald.
The success of any pathogen depends upon its ability to evade host immunity. Therefore, pathogens evolve methods that enable them to infect a host, and then evade detection and destruction by its immune system. These include hiding within host cells, within a protective capsule (as with M. tuberculosis), secreting compounds that misdirect the host's immune response, binding its antibodies, rapidly changing surface markers, or masking them with the host’s own molecules.
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
ScienceDaily (July 11, 2011) — Lungless salamanders (Ensatina eschscholtzii) live in a horseshoe-shape region in California (a 'ring') which circles around the central valley. The species is an example of evolution in action because, while neighboring populations may be able to breed, the two populations at the ends of the arms of the horseshoe are effectively unable to reproduce.
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence:
"...evolutionary biology predicts more than just the existence of fossil ancestors with certain characteristics - it also predicts that all other biological disciplines should also reveals patterns of similarity among whales, their ancestors, and other mammals correlated with evolutionary relatedness between groups. It should be no surprise that this is what we find, and since the findings in one biological discipline, say biochemistry, is derived without reference to the findings in another, say comparative anatomy, scientists consider these different fields to provide independent evidence of the evolution of whales. As expected, these independent lines of evidence all confirm the pattern of whale evolution that we would anticipate in the fossil record."
Thus we suggest paying special attention to the sections of the paper devoted to embryological stages and vestigial traits:
It makes no sense, for example, for some modern cetaceans to have useless, atrophied skeletal structures, such as pelvises and tiny hind-limbs, unless they evolved from animals that needed these structures to walk on land.
The fact that modern whales have genes which cause them to grow fur during the course of their embryological development, only to have it disappear before birth, also points to the fact that their ancestors were furred mammals.
Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations. Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them.
Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning.
This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces. Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere. The transitional fossils that have been found in abundance since Darwin’s time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that, over time, produce radically changed body forms and functions. It also is possible to directly observe many of the specific processes by which evolution occurs. Scientists regularly do experiments using microbes and other model systems that directly test evolutionary hypotheses.
Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible. But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. To young Earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old. Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.
EXAMPLE:
Theist states:
As for the Bacteria, its still bacteria, its changes , regardless of lateral mutation, loss, or any type of supposed gain, its still bacteria. Its not turning into a fish, or a human.
Well, evolution does not state that bacteria will magically change into a human or fish.. However, it does state that it could evolve into more complex organisms should evolution select for it. And this of course would be time scales you know would be in the millions of years. So of course we are not going to witness bacteria instantly changing into a fish. But a guarantee that you will never witness a walking fish magically appear on your desk either! However, let's educate ourselves on Bacteria:
Protozoa (from the Greek words π�ωτό, proto, meaning first, and ζωα, zoa, meaning animals; singular protozoon or also protozoan) are a diverse group of single-cell eukaryotic organisms, many of which are motile. Throughout history, protozoa have been defined as single-cell protists with animal-like behavior, e.g., movement. Protozoa were regarded as the partner group of protists to protophyta, which have plant-like behaviour, e.g., photosynthesis.
Protistans are eukaryotes. They have a nucleus, large ribosomes, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and golgi bodies. Many species have chloroplasts. Some protists divide by way of mitosis, meiosis, or both. The majority of protistians are single-celled, but nearly every lineage also has multicelled forms. Protists are important for the use of food. Saprobes resemble some bacteria and fungi, and some predators and parasites resembles animals. Some are heterotrophs and some are autotrophs. Chytrids, water molds, slime molds, protozans, and sporozans are heterotrophs.
These evolved from bacteria.. But let's get a better picture:
Eubacteria and Archaebacteria: the oldest forms of life
Written by Dr. T. M. Wassenaar Tuesday, 06 January 2009
Bacteria have an extremely important place in the evolution of life. Our knowledge of bacteria helps us understand, observe, and investigate evolution. This exhibits explains what we know about the origin of life on Earth and the role bacteria played and still play in this. As described in this Lecture on the Origin of Life all life originated from a common ancestor (Source: UTDallas). Our other exhibit explains how we can observe mutations in bacteria directly.
Archaeabacteria are a diverse group of bacteria (prokaryotes that do not have a nucleus) and are considered a major group unto themselves. This group is called the Archaea (from Greek, 'old') for short and to distinguish them from the other prokaryotes, all other bacteria are then called Eubacteria.
What are Archaea? They are more similar to eukaryotes than to bacteria in several ways: their cell-wall does not contain peptidoglycan (a component of each bacterial cell). There are other characteristics that Archaea share with eukaryotes, however they do not have a nucleus (which all Eukaryotes have). They form a group by themselves.
The Kingdom Monera is the taxonomic kingdom that comprises all prokaryotes: Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. Monera has been contrasted with the kingdoms of eukaryotic organisms (protists, fungi, plants, and animals).Archaebacteria emerged at least 3.5 billion years ago and are the oldest life forms.There are several theories about the exact phylogenetic relationship (what was derived from what) between archaea, eukaryotes, and eubacteria, as can be seen in two versions of the Tree-of-Life. New insights dictate that eubacteria and archaebacteria diverged from one another near the time of the origin of life, and that eukaryotes were derived from eubacteria.
Let's ignore the details. Important is that bacteria (Eu and Archae) have been on earth much longer than eukaryotes; they are probably the oldest forms of life and have populated Earth for most of the time our planet exists. Going back in evolutionary history, the Archaea evolved some 3500 million years ago. Fossiles are mostly not quite as old as that, but occasionally we do find bacterial fossiles. Compare that to the age of the first eukaryotes, 1800 million years ago, or the first animals, 600 million years. Earth is truly the planet of bacteria in this respect!
The first inhabitants of Earth did not need oxygen to breath, in fact oxygen was toxic to them, and this gas was rare in the atmosphere in those days. However the cyanobacteria that inhabited Earth in the Precambrium produced oxygen as a waste gas and so helped establish an aerobic ecosystem. Read more about Cyanobacteria. They grew in shallow sea water where they formed mats, and used incoming sunlight for photosynthesis. When such a bacterial mat was covered by mud or sand, light could no longer penetrate and the organisms died. A new mat could form on top of this, and the fossilized buildup of millions of layers resulted in the formation of Stromatolites, which can be seen to this day.
There are three major known groups within the Archaebacteria: methanogens, halophiles, and thermophiles. The methanogens are anaerobic bacteria that produce methane. They are found in sewage treatment plants, bogs, and the intestinal tracts of ruminants. Ancient methanogens are the source of natural gas. Halophiles are bacteria that thrive in high salt concentrations such as those found in salt lakes or pools of sea water. Thermophiles are the heat-loving bacteria found near hydrothermal vents and hot springs. You can read more about these Extremophiles in another exhibit.
The presence of Archaea and Bacteria changed Earth dramatically. They helped establish a stable atmosphere, and produced oxygen is such quantities that eventually life forms could evolve that needed oxygen in stead of producing it. The new atmospheric conditions calmed the weather so that the extremes were less severe. Life had created the conditions for new life to be formed. It is one of the great wonders of Nature that this could take place.
Last Updated on Friday, 06 March 2009
Now let's go back to this Theist argument:
Once again regardless of what tests are done, it is still basing it off of assumptions.
Incorrect. It's not based on purely assumption like Your GOD THEORY that has zero empirical value or evidence... NASA's research, fore example, has a lot to do with empirically supported data to which includes extremophiles, and even thermophiles. This also includes studies involving arsenic based life forms. I even wrote an article posted an article on possible self-replicating metals:
I have posted just a mere fraction of what I could have posted, and I took the time to sit here and convert links and format this information for your own consumption and education.. Though I doubt creationists will bother to actually read the material. If anyone would like me to, I can post a boat load more material here.. Including information theory / science that deals with biochemistry and evolutionary processes. And what Creationsists don't comprehend is that these same processes that are involved in evolution are also --->REQUIRED<--- to support the complexity and basic functionality of cognitive dynamics. systems, and a conscious state. More specifically noted under complex adaptive systems with feebback that deal with information flow, processes, cognitive system dynamics, interactions, interference, and reactionary response systems. Hugely important in bio-chemistry!
So you tell me where we kind find alternative explanations of life empirically.. What mechanisms have you tested for and established through experimentation and expressed with empirical data? So far I see not a single piece of literature you have posted to which even remotely comes close to establishing their claims that life can not be explained by physics, or chemistry ect..
In addition here is another good video:
[youtube][/youtbe]
Now back to the notion that life can't be explain by biochemistry ect.. Please post a peer reviewed journal that proves the following as being false:
most of a human body's mass is oxygen. Carbon, the basic unit for organic molecules, comes in second. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
Reference: H. A. Harper, V. W. Rodwell, P. A. Mayes, Review of Physiological Chemistry, 16th ed., Lange Medical Publications, Los Altos, California 1977.
Funny that no such paper exists, and that the paper you posted doesn't explain a damn thing and just makes wild assertions and claims it neither supports or has actually tested for in any sort or real scientific context, or usage of the scientific method.
Last edited by TheJackelantern on Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
No one is denying all the facts presented by the evolutionists. There are just a lot of people that prefer to use a philosophy other than Materialism to explain those facts.
Now Darwinism would have me believe that a bunch of nucleotides and enzymes and liptides and proteins and various other things just happened to all come together at the right time and place and form themselves into a cell.
Believing that the elements on the periodic table can come together and interact to form a self-replicating molecule isn't at all far fetched... It's not a matter of "at the right time" considering the right time is just the instance of occurrence and conditions.. You are basing the argument on a probability argument to which really has zero value or meaning here.. Especially when we can use the same argument against the existence of cognitive systems.. However, I will go over this subject you raised up briefly by posting a question from another person:
Why don't they manufacture this theorized self-replicating peptide and prove that it can self replicate. Then we will all know that a self replicating peptide can be ONLY 32 amino acids long.
A Self-Replicating Peptide under Ionic Control
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by S Yao - Cited by 36 - Related articles
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation. (9457372-CHE). ... K1K2 peptide would self-replicate from smaller fragments only under those .... time makes such coupling reactions possible in an unusually efficient manner.
A pH-Modulated, Self-Replicating Peptide http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... rgtYKSsL6g
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by S Yao - 1996 - Cited by 58 - Related articles
A pH-Modulated, Self-Replicating Peptide. Shao Yao, Indraneel Ghosh, Reena Zutshi, and. Jean Chmielewski*. Department of Chemistry, Purdue UniVersity ...
A Self-Replicating Peptide Nucleic Acid
Tobias A. Plöger, Günter von Kiedrowski
(Submitted on 21 Dec 2011)
We report on a case of autocatalytic feedback in a template directed synthesis of a self-complementary hexa-PNA from two trimeric building blocks. The course of the reaction was monitored in the presence of increasing initial concentrations of product by means of RP-HPLC. Kinetic modeling with the SimFit program revealed parabolic growth according to the so-called square-root law. The observed template effect, as well as the rate of the ligation, was significantly influenced by factors like nucleophilic catalysts, pH value, and uncharged co-solvents. Systematic optimization of the reaction conditions allowed us to increase the autocatalytic efficiency of the system by two orders of magnitude.
Comments: 36 pages
Subjects: Molecular Networks (q-bio.MN); Populations and Evolution (q-bio.PE)
Cite as: arXiv:1112.4952v1 [q-bio.MN]
Submission history
From: Tobias Plöger [view email]
[v1] Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:50:52 GMT (897kb)
1University of Cambridge, Department of Chemistry, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK.
2Department of Structural and Molecular Biology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
3Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, Netherlands.
4Centre for Systems Chemistry, Stratingh Institute, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, Netherlands.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: s.otto@rug.nl.
Abstract
We report here two self-replicating peptide-derived macrocycles that emerge from a small dynamic combinatorial library and compete for a common feedstock. Replication is driven by nanostructure formation, resulting from the assembly of the peptides into fibers held together by β sheets. Which of the two replicators becomes dominant is influenced by whether the sample is shaken or stirred. These results establish that mechanical forces can act as a selection pressure in the competition between replicators and can determine the outcome of a covalent synthesis.
Replicating something isn't as easy as something occurring naturally. Hence, try replicating a Hurricane for us, or build us a conscious object or thing.. You will find it's not so easy or simple to just try and replicate something than for it to actually occur according to the conditions that actually allow them to occur. Figuring out those conditions isn't easy either, and that involves numerous variables we are unlikely able to account for when dealing with a complex adaptive system to where predicting an outcome is pretty much impossible with any sort of certainty. But in more regards to elements coming together and forming a self-replicating molecule, we can address the following:
* Volcanic gases and amino acids could make peptides:
And what's funny is that creationists like Sarfati try to delete any notion of volcanic activity in regards to Early Earth.. They don't even believe in plate tectonics. And it's for two reasons.. Both really hurt the creationist story.. Especially concerning oil, and volcanic activity in how it deals with life:
* Geology.com/nasa - oil-seeps:
Near Under water vents on the early Earth could more than likely produced self-replicating peptides. And here are other things Creationists kindly ignore:
Deep Sea Rocks point to Oxygen on Early Earth ""We found that the hematite from this core was made of a single crystal and therefore was not hematite made by ultra violet radiation," said Ohmoto."
Creationists also ignore another major important deep sea minerals such as Majorite that act as oxygen reservoirs.. These likely played a HUGE ROLE IN EARLY EARTH AND LIFE as they do with current life!
The peptide-catalyzed stereospecific synthesis of tetroses: A possible model for prebiotic molecular evolution PNAS 2006 103 (34) 12713-12717; published ahead of print August 11, 2006, doi:10.1073/pnas.0602320103
...facile reaction between amino acids and carbonyl sulfide near volcanic sources ( 25 ). On the other hand...in the distribution of homochiral and racemic peptide products. For homochiral...this end, the l -ee of meteoritic amino acids, which were validated unequivocally...therein). Materials and Methods Peptides and other chemicals were obtained...nitrogen atoms of the peptide catalyst and the C1 of one glycolaldehyde molecule...material, such as the nonracemic amino acids found in meteorites, could have...stereospecific catalysis. Because peptides might have formed readily on the...Biogenesis Catalysis Evolution, Molecular Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry...
Peptides by activation of amino acids with CO on (Ni, Fe) S surfaces: implications for the origin of life
[PDF] from forth.gr http://www.sciencemag.org/content/281/5377/670.short
C Huber… - Science, 1998 - sciencemag.org... In experiments modeling volcanic or hydrothermal settings amino acids were converted into their peptides by use of coprecipitated ... 1 mmol of NiS in 10 ml of water with 4 mmol of CO gas (1 bar ...CO-SCH 3 ), and by the formation of small amounts of the N-acetyl-amino acids in our ...Cited by 295 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 13 versions
From the prebiotic synthesis of α-amino acids towards a primitive translation apparatus for the synthesis of peptides http://www.springerlink.com/index/bjvg9u11h429cb1a.pdf
R Pascal, L Boiteau… - Prebiotic Chemistry, 2005 - Springer... atmosphere some local environments may remain favorable to prebiotic chemistry, such as
volcanic plumes or ... Kobayashi and co-workers succeeded in syn- thesizing amino acid precursors(amino acids being observed after acidic hydrolysis) in the gas phase (80 â—¦ C..
A sulfurous start for protein synthesis http://www.sciencemag.org/content/281/5377/627.1.short
G Vogel - Science, 1998 - sciencemag.org
... The amino acids had to be kept dry, for instance, or be activated by compounds not found in nature. In contrast, Wächtershäuser says, his system “uses nothing more than what is available in volcanic exhalations�—the magma and pressurized gases that suddenly hit cooler .
Amino acid dependent formation of phosphate anhydrides in water mediated by carbonyl sulfide http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja056036e
LJ Leman, LE Orgel… - Journal of the American …, 2006 - ACS Publications
... The studies reported here suggest that COS, a simple volcanic gas, could have mediated both ...Citation data is made available by participants in CrossRef's Cited-by Linking service. ... mechanisms and free energetics underlying the formation of peptides from α-amino acids and α ...
[PDF] Life's first scalding steps
[PDF] from sciencenews.org http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/d ... 502-14.pdf
S Simpson - Science News, 1999 - sciencenews.org... Water and Volcanic Gases Pyruvic Acid Alanine Activated Acetic Acid ... He sees no reason why amino acids simmering in pools of water on rocky shorelines couldn't link up through ... around for the origin of life would like to discover the first molecule that learned to make copies of ...
Direct asymmetric intermolecular aldol reactions catalyzed by amino acids and small peptides A Córdova, W Zou, P Dziedzic… - …
A European Journal, 2006 - Wiley Online Library...
Get PDF (261K) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 01639/full
Oligopeptide formation may thus have played a role in the evolution of homochirality of sugars. For instance, we found that ancient amino acids that are oligomerized to peptides with the help of volcanic gas20 catalyze the asymmetric ...
And there is another great thing about volcanoes.. It's the Haze effect to which can block UV radiation and help protect early life even though deep sea vents do not receive UV radiation:
I believe, and have believed for several years, that true randomness does not exist, so there is no need to lecture me further on that.
True randomness doesn't exist regardless of what you believe.. Nothing that occurs happens by randomness.. All things happen due to force interactions. Randomness only deals with our ability to predict an outcome.. That's all it is. A true random event never actually happens. So please see chaos theory above..
So a creationist responds with:
We hold beliefs about life's origin. Your beliefs were caused, as were mine. Your belief that natural processes alone produced man is not science but faith.
The reality is that there is only natural phenomenon.. We are all literally a part of nature and a phenomenon of nature. Nature is a phenomenal thing. The only plausible option I can offer you, giving that we know consciousness can't exist without cause, is that it's plausible that the big bang was induced by something of intelligence to which could have come into being a long time ago. This being of course would also have to be an emergent property of nature.. After all, we to can create light from vacuum energy, and we may have already induced a big bang unknowingly in particle collisions. So I'm not saying it's impossible to have a creator of sorts, I'm telling you that the governing forces are the forces of nature regardless of how much we can manipulate them to our own benefit. To give you perspective:
Ants plant entire forests and create massive ecosystems for other living animals.
Maybe Ants are GOD's too
Last edited by TheJackelantern on Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
pax wrote:No one is denying all the facts presented by the evolutionists. There are just a lot of people that prefer to use a philosophy other than Materialism to explain those facts.
Problem is, philosophy isn't immaterial. It requires physical phenomenon and the physical processing of information to manifest.. Hence, cognitive systems are physically phenomenal.. Have you ever seen a theist try to explain what an immaterial thing is, or convey it immaterially? Yeah, it goes in circles about trying to make nothing magically something.. :/ Regardless, it's irrelevant since such cognitive systems can not suffice to answer the fundamental questions of life, or even why everything exists. We can only establish things empirically to which we know were products of intelligent intervention.. Such as cars... But you can not say the same to such things like snow flakes falling in a snow storm, or even the emergence of conscious beings like ourselves. Reality looks designed, but reality does not require a conscious designer. This is especially true when any conscious being will require reality in order to exist at all and be an emergent property of it... So no, Shermana or you could suffice to answer the questions with saying "GOD Done it" unless you are both Pantheists..
So I sit here waiting for some Creationist here to explain to me cognitive systems without cause..
Your argument is so bad here that it's like saying physics and chemistry can't account for water molecules... Yeah, excuse us for dismissing such nonsense
Your very own citation says that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain life. Don't you remember you sent me the video?
You have continuously sent me stuff that you havent bothered to view yourself.
You couldn't even get your last three post right and now your doing what I told you not to do and bombard me with a bunch of stuff you haven't even read. You think all this stuff is empirical because it has a title. You also sent me stuff that had nothing to do with irreducible complexity and mistakenly thinking that it did because you saw the word reducible in the title. You referred me to an algebra Journal that had nothing to do with the subject. I guess you saw a word in there that you thought pertained to the subject but dealt more with high school math. You couldn't even get the information on the Caldwell case right and cited the wrong case and di so with great bravado. Then you said that IC had been debunked yet could provide any evidence and couldn't even give a cohesive argument on the TTSS Apparatus.
On March 20, 2006, US District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed Ms. Caldwell's suit, ruling that she lacked taxpayer standing and had not asserted a concrete injury as a result of viewing the "Understanding Evolution" website. Ms. Caldwell appealed, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision on October 3, 2008. Finally, the US Supreme Court declined without comment to review the case on March 23, 2009.
Do you remember this citation above? You didn't even admit that you were wrong or confused about the case.
Do you remember this citation below when you said that these two papers were removed. You were wrong and didn't even bother to retract your statment even after I correct you.
For example, just the first 2 paper on that 50 list were removed:
Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,� Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012)
David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,� Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).
And to top it off, you send me a video that admits that physics and chemistry cannot account for life which is what I have been saying along. I'm sorry but as for the rest. I don't believe that tornados cause order. They cause destruction.
Quote:
First off, it's pure speculation. The ten remaining proteins that Miller speaks of are not the same. Thats right. Not the same. They are homologous, meaning similar but not the same, and when pushed, even he admitted this fact, and a fact I might add he constantly omits.
Please prove it cant'
Oh yes I can. 5:00 Into video Miller Admits that these proteins are indeed not the same. They are homologous and if Behe would not have brought it up, Miller would have continued to mislead.
I told you several times to keep it to one subject at a time and be able to explain it in your own words. Bombarding me with books and articles is not impressing anyone.
TheJackelantern wrote:So I sit here waiting for some Creationist here to explain to me cognitive systems without cause..
And you will sit and wait for a long time because we do not believe that anything is without cause.
We don't have to wait a long time.. We see it everyday all around us.. But we will indeed be waiting an infinite amount of time for a creationist to actually address it. There is a reason why I said to watch the secret life of chaos.. It's the same system to which consciousness can not exist without.. Also, there is one thing that does exist without cause.. It's reality itself.. Existence simply exists without creation due to the impossibility for it to be created, and due to the impossibility of non-existence existing as an existing person, place, object, substance, or thing... The answers are simple even if the complexity of our reality isn't.
So when I see someone argue against evolution, I only need ask them about the cognitive systems and how they emerge, and produce a fully conscious mind.. Evolution goes to the very foundations of reality, and we find that we do not living in a static existence, and that is because if existence was nothing but a static state, there wouldn't be universes, people, minds, consciousness, or life.. And scientists understands this. Yes we are still trying to figure out how particles gain mass within the system, and yes we are still trying to unravel all the secrets of reality..But the fact remains, no conscious mind could ever suffice to be the answer to the equation of why we are here.
