A Great Video Which Is Throws The Theory Of Evolution Out Of The Window

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Mountain_Fire77, Oct 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    Macro evolution is a term coined by people attempting to tear the theory of evolution apart.

    I have NEVER encountered the term in scientific settings. It is an inaccurate thing to claim that X isn't true because mod(X) isn't true.


    and besides, speciation has been seen many times, both in and out of the lab:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    http://www.fishecology.ch/research/africancichlidfish.htm

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June06/electric.fish.sb.html
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    You are disregarding the work of Stephen J, Gould, then?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    What is your issue with this:
    This thirty two amino acid peptide ligase with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE is an enzyme that will self catalyse its own formation. For example,
    Severin, Lee, Kennan, and Ghadiri A synthetic peptide ligaseNature 1997 Oct 16;389(6652):706-9.
    The preparation of synthetic molecules showing the remarkable efficiencies characteristic of natural biopolymer catalysts remains a formidable challenge for chemical biology. Although significant advances have been made in the understanding of protein structure and function, the de novo construction of such systems remains elusive. Re-engineered natural enzymes and catalytic antibodies, possessing tailored binding pockets with appropriately positioned functional groups, have been successful in catalysing a number of chemical transformations, sometimes with impressive efficiencies. But efforts to produce wholly synthetic catalytic peptides have typically resulted in compounds with questionable structural stability, let alone reactivity. Here we describe a 33-residue synthetic peptide, based on the coiled-coil structural motif, which efficiently catalyses the condensation of two shorter peptide fragments with high sequence- and diastereoselectivity. Depending on the substrates used, we observe rate enhancements of tenfold to 4,100-fold over the background, with catalytic efficiencies in excess of 10(4). These results augur well for the rational design of functional peptides.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,934
    Stephen J. Gould talks about macroevolution only to point out that it is a misnomer, and in fact all evolution is the same thing.

    Incorrect. An axiom is something accepted without a rational explanation.

    All those things you mentioned can be measured and shown to exist by a rational process.

    The Big Bang is not an axiom, it is a theory. Gravity is not an axiom, and no one accepts an axiom as to the cause of gravity. Axioms, or assumptions, are used in science, but only provisionally.

    Definitions don't determine why things work, and the nature of gravity is not inherently unknowable.

    You don't have to understand everything to understand something. That is what you seem to be suggesting. Our understanding of evolution is not dependent on understanding advanced theoretical physics.

    -I just want to thank you, lightgigantic, for your patience. Although we don't agree, at least you are making a valiant and gracious effort.
     
  8. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    I have read some of his stuff, and I have not seen the term. If it is a term with an agreed apon definition within scientific boundries, then I retract my complaint.

    It seems that I am wrong. D'oh, sorry for posting mis-information:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

    spidergoat: that's what I thought. what is your take on the TalkOrigins link?
     
  9. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    I've been following the creaionism versus evolution wars for nealy 2 years now, and have hardly seen the term used by biologists at all. This is I think mainly because craetionists have been misusing it so long, that a large number of biologists in general day to day stuff avoid using it, hence why I have hardly seen it at all.
    In the sense of the talkorigins faq, macroevolution has not actually been observed, so the creationists are sort of correct. However tehir own tehories do not adequately account for this, nor do they account for the observed incidents detailed near the bottom of the talkorigins faq.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,934
    river-wind,
    It seems the terms are useful in scientific discussions, but it still doesn't imply a real separation in the sense that creationists use it.

    It's like talking about 10 to the power of 34 as a macronumber and .00345 as a micronumber. They are both still numbers.
     
  11. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    PRecisely, Spidergoat.
    But to the uninformed, they sound like real, useful labels, and thus the creationist sows confusion.
     
  12. ambehrendt Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    I'm still waiting on evidence for God to exist... (and please go beyond 'you have to have faith...')
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,934
    There is some evidence that life arose from the elements. We are made of elements, and the proportion of salt to water in us is about the same as the ocean. Also, organic molecules can be found in space.
     
  14. ambehrendt Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Actually theories cannot actually be proven - or, well, if they are then they are no longer theories. A religious friend of mine once asked me if believing is seeing how come I believe in atomic theory etc. My response was simply this - atomic theory - whether correct or incorrect allows me (and others) to predict what will happen given a set of pre-conditions; this is functional theory. Evolution, or more correctly the theory of evolution, whether correct or incorrect has great usefullness in prediction and thus will be used whether it's correct or not. The theory of God has no functional use for what some would coin practical purposes and yet from where I stand it is one of the most functional and used theories.

    God - is the greatest source of hope and comfort for much of the population of the planet. Granted more people have been killed in his (or her) name than for any other historical reason but for what it is worth practically in todays world, I really can't see a problem with it. The theory of god is the most indestructible of all theories as it's existence or at least the belief of existence has a word - faith; and despite complete lack of tangible evidence and practical application - anyone that has this 'faith' will have no problem hearing all the 'lack of facts against' existence and smiling; knowing that they will be going to a better place when they die. Opiate of the masses come to mind.

    If we hope them to apply working theories in solving future problems and creating new things - I think it's awesome. Of course you are right you know, it would be much easier to just have faith.
     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,934
    According to the theory, you can appeal to God through prayer- an assumption that can be tested and was. Guess what, prayer for the improvement of a sick person did not cause them to heal any more quickly. In fact, it did show an effect when they knew they were being prayed for- they healed less quickly.
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    phlogistician

    So for practical purposes you have a theory


    Assuming that the universe unfolded in the standard way that people think, with the big bang and so. There were many chemicals around that, some of which were the same as those that appear in living systems today, while some weren't the same. Somehow the first cell had to appear. Some of the chemicals would have been around, some wouldn't have been around. How it got to the first living cell is so utterly unknown. Anybody is free to speculate about what would have happened. One should recognize that one's ideas are speculations. At least they are not justified by physical evidence at this point. And some people forget that their ideas are speculations because they assume that physical processes unaided by anything were innvolved
    -Behe



    Actually it indicates that we are stuck in the loop, not god
     
  17. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Would you like to be more specific about what is speculation, given the behe quote you have just quoted? So far, intelligent design is speculation. Evolution is a scientific theory.
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    spidergoat


    but the basis behind why they exist cannot be explained - like it cannot be explained why the speed of light is 2.99792458 x 10 (8), as opposed to 3 x 10 (8), except to say that because that is the speed light travels at - hence the speed oflight is an axiom

    obviously

    Gravity is an axiom, because it cannot be explained a superior axiom - einstein tried with unified field theory but was not successful (and to date no one else is either) hence what you say is true - no one accepts an axiom as the cause of gravity

    they are used essentially - science cannot operate without them


    Not sure what you are saying here - obviously some things are know about gravity, but those things are related to its effect and not its cause (we don't know why mass has an element of gravity, only that it does)

    then what is it dependant on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    spidegoat you have a vastly greater understanding of biology than I shall ever have. However, in comparison with myself you know diddly shit about evolution. The importance of macro versus micro evolution relates to the entities upon which the processes of natural selection may work. Gould says it best:

    "...theoretical development and accumulating data on punctuated equilibrium allowed us to reconceptualize species as genuine Darwinian individuals, fully competent to participate in processes of selection at their own supraorganismic (and suprademal) level - and then to rethink macroevolution as the differential success of species rather than the extended anagenesis of organismal adaptation."

    p26, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory 2002 The Belknap Press (ISBN 0-674-00613-5)
     
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    More than a theory! Demonstrable fact that amino acids can be produced in a lab, in circumstances that mimic primordial earth.

    If you read Ophiolites post concerning "Severin, Lee, Kennan, and Ghadiri A synthetic peptide ligase", it only takes 32 of these Amino acids to link up to start replicating. Just 32! So we have proof Amino acids can be created from primordial soup, and proof that they can self replicate. All we need now is the bit in between. So a theory with supporting evidence, is what we have. What have you got? Not even a good theory!


    There is evidence for this, the expansion of the Universe as shown by red shift, the cosmic microwave background, and more importantly, it's anisotropy. The spectra form 1st and 2nd generation stars, observing supernovae spreading the material back into space from those stars. All proven.

    Again, you show your lack of understanding of chemistry. No new chemicals have appeared on Earth since it's formation. ALL the elements now present in the Earth were created when a 1st generation star went supernova, and the heavier elements were created then, dispersed into space, and then coallesced into another star and it's surrounding planets. Elements are created in stars nuclear reactions, and the only path of change is nuclear decay.

    You start with cells, but that's not where were should start thinking about the origin of life. Start with a prion, or self replicationg protein, then think about it getting more complex over time. Understand that mitochondria in cells might have got their due to a symbiotic relationship. Cells didn't just appear, cells are the culmination of other areas of development.

    Not true, and not true. Your education is severely lacking here. The elements that comprise the Earth were born in a supernova, and coallesced into the Earth, and the Sun, and other planets. Nothing has arrived that wasn't already here. Why these elements are present in life is very simple, Carbon, Oxygen, and Iron are very abundant in the Earths crust, partly because they are radioactively stable elements. Iron forms helpful ligands, your blood relies on this, haemoglobin uses a ligand exchange mechanism to loosely bind oxygen. But that's not to say that other elements wouldn't work; some shellfish have copper based blood, and that works just fine too!

    There is tonnes of evidence, but it seems your education in it, or understanding of it is severely lacking.


    This is where you are really showing desperation, and a complete lack of understanding of science! We have equations for physical events that predict things incredibly accurately. We know which chemical reactions are viable, and which are not, and can predict what conditions we need, what yield to expect. There is no significant error margin for 'God' to play with the numbers. NONE.



    No it shows that you can't form a coherent argument, and seem to forget what you said already; that God and time existed for eternity, I asked you if you understood that ramafications of this, and clearly you didn't, because you then changed your mind and said time is a loop, but god isn't in that loop, we are. You talk RUBBISH. From our point of view, time and space were created 14Bn years ago, and time moves in a straight line. You invented the loop crap because you could not comprehend an infinite past amount of time, and did not have an answer for why god waited for eternity before creating the Universe, because an inifinite past is not logical!

    Make your mind up, at least try to come up a theory, because at this point in time, you don't even have one. Science does, and has evidence to back it up.
     
  21. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I guess that all our purine bases are belong to them.
     
  22. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,022
    Somebody set us up the theory of evolution!
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    For this practical test to work you would have to assume (contrary to numerous scriptural definitions) that god is the servant and the devotee (of any caliber of quality) is the master who is entitled to demand anything
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page