Denial of evolution III

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    In the case of the exterior water and the cell membrane, I was talking more about the evolutionary state called abiogenesis, with the improved flux of organics speeding up whatever is going on inside. To addess those other points of evolution such as genone, we need to looked at the inside membrane boundary conditions. In this case, potassium accumulates. Potassium has the opposite effect as sodium on water or is a kaotrope; increases the disorder/ entropy in the water. The outside water pulls and the inside water pushes, with one proportional to the other. This allows the outside to impact the inside and the inside the outside.

    The concept of entropy tends to create a conceptual problem for most people. Although we define entropy in a certain way, entropy is also lumped into other variables, making it harder to see other important aspects of entropy.

    A good example of this lumping has to do with weather. A low pressure system results from water vapor in the atmosphere condensing into droplets. This is why low pressure and rain go together. When the water vapor condenses, according to PV=nRT the number of moles of gas decreases in the local air, since we lose the partial pressure of the water vapor. With V,T and R constant the pressure will drop. If you even did canning, when the jars cool. the hot moist air inside the the jar condenses and pulls a vacuum, since we lose partial pressure.

    When water condenses into rain droplets, the entropy of the water vapor will decrease, since the water goes from the disorder of the gas phase into the order of the smaller volume of a liquid. This loss of entropy within the air, lowers the pressure in the air. We don't normally call this change a loss of entropy. Who would figure pressure drop in weather and entropy are related. We tend to equate entropy to the diversity in clouds, which is more cosmetic and not pushing a weather system.

    There are many such examples of entropy lumped into other variables. To add these to the standard definition, I prefer the expression "degrees of freedom" to better define entropy. This includes all the randomess of the clouds as well as the pressure drop. Condensing water vapor into rain lowers the degree of freedom of the water vapor. The wind coming in from higher pressure system toward lower pressure gains entropy or the air in thw wind will gain degrees of freedom, since now it can move, in a semi-directed way, over the distance between the high and low pressure. It would not have that freedom without the low pressure or entropy drop in the water vapot. But also it loses some degree of freedom since it may move directly toward the low pressure and not be able to meander. Or it might form the order of a tornatoe which restricts its freedom.

    If we go back to the outside of the membrane, the induction of the membrane into lower entropy, due to the cationic segregration results in the sodium cations on the outside. The sodium cations, by being a kosmotrope will lowers the entropy in the adjacent water. We now have sort of our pseudo-low pressure/entropy system that is causing higher entropy flow patterns in the local water toward the lower entropy.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Then we have a problem, as abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection are two different theories. There isn't a state of evolution called abiogenisis.

    So your claim is that the chemical properties of sodium and water makes abiogensis more likely, due to it's effect of concentrating organic molecules. Is this accurate?

    And what does this do, exactly? In terms of the membrane region of a cell, how does this flow of matter, and the patterns through which this flow occurs (which varying levels of entropy associated), cause an effect with regards to life?

    In turn, how does this effect show that the theory of evolution via natural selection is dogmatic and inaccurate?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Abiogensis is an aspect of evolution, which the current evolutionary theory can not take into account. This limitation requires we treat abiogenesis as being different, rather than say the current model breaks down when we try to go there.

    Rather than work within those limitations, even if that would make everyone happy, I thought it would be more progressive to work under the assumption that a better model should be able to explain and interface both aspects. Potentials that help abiogenesis should carry over and continue to play a role as scaffolding onto which further bells and whistles appear.

    The induced flow of material toward the membrane, via entropy potential, makes whatever mechanism we wish to use inside the membrane, easier, by virtue of higher concentrations. You don't need a high concentration outside if we can concentrate stuff inside; more options.

    Let me move the discussion inside the membrane. I would like to first look at the DNA. The DNA (and RNA) have a very suitable design feature for the entropy boundary I am proposing for evolution. In particular, both RNA and DNA have phosphate groups along the polymer backbone. What is significant about this design feature is the phosphate is a cosmotropic ion. This means it helps to create order in the water. This order in the water helps to induce order within the helixes.

    If we go back to the membrane, the cation pumping will result in the inside accumulating potassium cations. The potassium cations are chaotropic or will create disorder in water. Their impact is the opposite of the phosphate, with the entropy induction, within the local water near the DNA, increasing the entropy at the DNA. The potassium induction will increase the degrees of freedom at the DNA; unpack, synthesis, mutation.

    To summarize, the bulk membrane defines a low entropy situation due to ordering of cations on opposite side of the membrane. This would prefer to increase entropy into a uniform solution. Within this low entropy induction, are the two separated cations, which will create an external pull and internal push at the same time within the water. We get extra entropy at the DNA, at the same time we attract food.

    Say food material enters the cell, the local membrane potential will reverse using that energy to transport the material. The sodium ion in helps by continuing its local pull. While the potassium out, gives a local external push; other food wait your turn.

    Once we restore the local membrane potential, the potassium inside pushes again; keep moving food nothing to see here. It can't back out. Since the food is made of reduce materials, it adds een more entropy to the water via surface tension. This will amplify the entropy to the DNA; more genes and more activity.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Evolutionary theory is easily and frequently applied to research into abiogenesis, and has suggested several lines of inquiry.

    If it turns out that the early stages of what were to produce living beings, or even the first few unequivocally "living" entities themselves, were not products of evolution, then that's what happened - evolutionary theory remains unchanged, in the arenas in which it does explain and establish.
  8. chosenbygrace Registered Member

    Evolutionists are MORONS

    Hey moron: if u hadn't noticed yet, the Internet is already filled with evidence for Intelligent Design / Creationism AND ZERO FOR "NOTHING TO MOLECULES TO MAN EVOLUTION". You're a stupid Mainstream Cultist who is heavily deluded. Listen to your stupid thoughts idiot:

    "Dur me know what happened 14 billion years ago, but oh u dumb creationists how can u be so stupid and believe u no what happened 6,500 years ago!!! YOU BIG DUMMY CREATIONISTS! U DENIERS! DUUR ME IS HOMER!." Yeah dur. Ur a deluded narcissistic idiot who is so past intelligent, you literally believe u know for a fact what happened 14 billion years ago, and Creationists are dumb for not believing ur cultist feelings. MORON: FOURTEEN BILLION YEARS AGO, NOT MILLION, NOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS, NOT TENS OF THOUSANDS, BUT BILLIONS YOU IDIOT. Do you hear yourself? You're a deluded moron. Occam's Razor dummy.

    You're moron self's attempt to squeeze it all in an obscure forum is dumb, retarded, stupid, pathetic and sad. Stop accusing others of the very dumb things you do: stop denying reality and the obvious. You're an ignorant moron and who loves ignorance and being a cyber bully. Grow up already and learn to use a spell checker you backwards idiot.

    And "denialism"? Moron.
  9. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

  10. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    let's see it then

    this should be a laugh
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    I believe in the biological progression of life over billions of years. Where I differ from the existing theory is that the process of genetic change is not as random as currently thought. The cell membrane provides a boundary condition for life, based on lower entropy and higher energy. Life evolves in that direction. Going from RNA based life to DNA follows that logic. Going from single to multicellular also follows that same logic.

    The low entropy and high energy conditions at the membrane is generated by the most energy intensive process within the cell; cation pumping. This maintains a membrane potential, based on the segragation of sodium/potassium cations. This membrane potential gives cells a means for directing evolution.

    The outside of the membrane concentrates sodium cations. These cations create order in water, which creates a potential for higher surface tension material , which create disorer in water, to migrate toward the cell. It attracts food and raw materials.

    The potassium that concentrates on the inside of the membrane increases the disorder in water. This increases the aqueous entropy inside the cell. To get genetic changes we need to increase the entropy on the DNA. The membrane supplies that potential, in a simulataneous way, with the outside mirror potential that determines cellular input. This makes genetic change closer to environmental need.

    The phosphate group is a cosmotrope, which means it creates order in water. Phosphate is not only incorporated into the genetic material (DNA and RNA), but it is also the basis for the primary mobile energy molecule of the cell; ATP. The impact of all the phosphate, is to induce order in the water. This induces order in the organics surrounded by the water. The phosphate helps order the DNA. The potassium, by doing the opposite regulates DNA disorder to mirror input need. This disorder increases the potential for ATP to create order again, driving processes on the DNA.

    The cell evolved a very slick design. The inside of the cell membrane concentrates potassium, which creates disorder in water. The phosphate within the mobile ATP, preferentially prefers the membrane, since the membrane defines the highest level of disorder, and therefore sets the highest potential for the aqueous order generated by phosphate.

    Not all the ATP will go into the membrane. Even neurons only use 90% of their ATP energy for the membrane potential. There is always excess ATP. The interior potassium, by being a kaotrope, will increase the disorder within the cellular water. This impacts the interior materials. This increases the potential for ATP to diffuse throughout the cell. There is a hierarchy for ATP from protein to RNA to DNA based on lowering entropy.
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Hello, toidi. Do you have anything other than tired rhetoric to support your immature outburst? More to the point, do oyu have the courage to engage in an intelligent exchange about any single aspect of evolution you choose, with an open mind? Or, have you already decided to close it completely? Man, or mouse? Which kind are you?
  13. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    To be clear, evolutionary theory does not think of genetic change as random. It does think of mutation as effectively random, though arguments can be made for the physics of chemistry making the process non-deterministic, rather than 'random'. Genetic change across a population is decidedly non-random, as influenced by man-made or natural pressures via selection. The idea that phosphates create a more stable environment for the presence and duration of on-chain reproductive molecules is not one I had heard before, but it sounds reasonable enough.

    Many aspects of rudimentary biology and synthesis of organic compounds appear to be very non-random due to the physics involved in their bonds; to the point that life seems somewhat inevitable under the right environmental conditions.

    This is, again, more in the abiogenisis realm of conversation, however, and a bit off-topic here.

    When you rant like a child, you bring the level of your side of the argument down to that of a child. If you'd like to show us the error of our ways, act like an adult. Speak clearly, make cognizant points, cite your sources, refrain from unneeded temper tantrums, and finish your vegetables.
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    A logical direction towards what? And how?
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Two thoughts:
    (1) Yep. The internet is full of a lot of things, especially religious nuttery that tries to pass itself off as science. Some actually buy into the bilge (see: yourself).

    (2) I guess it would be better if we believed in (as I stated before):
    A deity with long white beard, supposedly perfect (though, desperately needing little people to worship him) creating the world in 6 days, surly wives turning to salt, trumpets toppling walls of wicked cities, angels of death killing the first born of Egypt, trios of men standing in hot furnaces unharmed, snotty men getting gobbled by giant trout--remaining gastronomically bound for a few days--and returned to the earth unharmed, any number of people being raised from the dead, hair cutting draining one's super powers, global-genocidal floods, boats big enough to contain TWO OF EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL, EVERYWHERE, ON PLANET EARTH, people with life spans just under millennium, giant hands writing foreboding messages on walls of cities, messiahs strolling on water, chatty asses (not your butt: donkeys speaking Aramaic), parting of seas, stopping of rivers, plagues too numerous to name, magical golden arks that contain a place to sit when god gets tired feet, feeding of THOUSANDS with a pair of fish and five loaves of bread (the ultimate weight loss program), OH YEAH, and the stopping of the Sun so that god's chosen people could--once again--slaughter their enemies. Meanwhile, the earth is only a few thousand years old. [and that's the abridged version]

    Keeping in mind that god slaughtering people is common place in the Bible. Floods, tent spikes through the noggin, cities burning to the ground and other warm-fuzzies are peppered throughout the bible. Meanwhile, at no point, do the followers of Christianity (nor Christ himself) deal with issues that we consider matter-of-fact ethics: wives as property, equal female rights, polygamy, slaughtering of cities, slavery, children as property of parents. The Christian world (barring polygamy) failed to come to grips with these issues until about a century ago. One would surely believe that a perfect god, his perfect son, Christ, and the many prophets of the Abrahamic faiths (of any variety: Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Baha'i; or those wacky "other guys" in Asia and Africa), could have just come out and said, "HEY PEOPLE! Listen Up!!! All societies must be ruled by the consent of the governed. There are no elite classes or castes, everybody is equal. And, LOOK, women and men are equal before God too, so you should emulate this fact on earth. Never treat females like property; treat them as equals before the law and in every aspect of society (they have hopes, dreams and wishes too, you know!). Your children aren't your property, so don't put them to work in factories where they can lose their fingers. Do not wage wars for expansion, live totally in peace with each other. Do not EVER colonize another land that's already occupied by other people nor should you ever wipe them out so that you can take their land. And for Vishnu's sake DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES own slaves or possess indentured servants. That's very, VERY bad and God just doesn't approve of it nor will you EVER get in to heaven if you treat another person like property." Seems pretty simple, yet we don't see any meaningful resolution to these fundamental ethical issues until about the last century and a half!!!

    On the other hand, you have:
    A scientific theory, supported by the fossil evidence, a steady increase in the complexity of earth's life forms layered in the earth's strata. Rocks that have been accurately dated (via Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, Uranium-Thorium [to name a few] methods) that have all placed the earth's age in the billions of years. This is supported by sister sciences of plate tectonics, strata layering (as in: the accumulation of "stuff", layer upon layer on the earth) and astrophysics (dating the age of the universe via observing the motion and age of stars) and good ol' fashioned mathematics. It all says the same thing: The earth is OLD, and the universe is VERY old. Moreover, the theory of evolution along with plate tectonics have made eerily accurate predictions as to where fossil evidence will be found (Wadi Al Hitan, and the Canadian arctic, for example), though that need not be the validating point of the theory of evolution. It's true worth is in answering, accurately, how life on earth has developed over the eons without the need for tooth fairies, devils, gremlins, miracles, spells, ghosts, demonic possessions, mass exterminations or deity worship.

    So, please, regale us with the peer reviewed scientific evidence that supports the world being 6500 years old, a creator who made the earth in six days, pillars of fire, cataclysmic floods and whatnot.

  16. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Is amazing you guys are talking like science fiction, not a piece of fact. I saw thousand of fishes jumping out of the water for many reasons, but they are still a fish and their offspring are the same. All what are you saying is only science fiction, not a piece of fact at all. If evolution where true, you have to have the primitive form as a dominant form then you have to have a change on the dominant form of animals and the variant or diversified form needed to take over the dominant form becoming a dominant form itself and then and establishing that form as a dominant form for sometime with the new changes and then start all over. But in the fossil record is not there supporting this. Is just intermediate forms do not exist in the fossils found. And if you think it does, please let's discuss this.
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    You need to learn more about paleontology. Fossilization requires very specific conditions.
    • The organic material must not become part of the food chain: consumed by predators, scavengers, detritivores, plant roots, fungus, bacteria, etc.--BTW there are millions of organisms that happily break down and digest bone.
    • It must not be exposed to the air, which hastens decomposition.
    • It must not be subject to mechanical obliteration, such as erosion, the natural tilling of the soil by regenerating plants, impact of falling trees, footsteps, etc.
    • It must remain near the earth's surface so we can find it, not buried by soil buildup, peat-to-coal conversion, vulcanism, etc.
    • There are many other requirements.
    Given this, it's a miracle that there are any fossils at all. To demand a complete collection of fossils of every intermediate species for the past three and a half billion years is to not understand the planet you live on.

    Besides, I'm not sure what you call an "intermediate form." We have fossils, for example, that show the emergence of feathers on reptiles that are intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. We have fossils of pre-modern polar bears that have teeth more similar to their black bear ancestors than modern polar bears, but otherwise are nearly identical to modern polar bears. We have many intermediate forms of apes that rather nicely trace the transition from our chimpanzee-like ancestors to modern humans.

    What exactly are you looking for? One fossil at regular thousand-year intervals from every evolutionary line in the entire Animal Kingdom, to make sure we don't miss any transitional forms? (The American bald eagle speciated from the Asian white-tailed eagle a mere ten thousand years ago.) Not to mention the Plant, Fungus, Algae, Bacteria and Archaea Kingdoms?

    Let's see: there are about a hundred million species currently in existence. If life started with a single species, that means the number of species doubles roughly every hundred million years. (Everyone, feel free to check my math, but even a large error isn't going to have a substantive affect on my conclusion.)

    So you're demanding that we find about fifty million fossils representing every thousand-year interval, in order to make sure we catch all the "transitional forms."

    That would be trillions of fossils. You'd be tripping over them on your way to work.
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    At the risk of repeating Fraggle's excellent points, you are laboring under many misconceptions about evolution. Evolution does not say anything like dominant forms must be replaced by other dominant forms. The environment has plenty of room for diversity because there is more than one way to make a living on Earth. As a matter of fact, all forms are transitional. In fact, every individual creature that was born as the product of sexual reproduction is unique.
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    NONSENSE: You just fabricate falsehoods and present them as facts.
    See: Some examples there. The "whale part" of the text there is re-presented below:

    Whales, which evolved from four legged land animals not too long ago by evolutionary time scales, have left a complete set of fossil remains of all their transition steps to creatures that can only live in the oceans.

    First the stage with large and strong hind legs more important for swimming than the tail. Probably an amphibian, which could still walk on land;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Then more recent fossils of evolving whales have greatly reduced leg bones, but they are still an attached part of the main skeleton;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This fossil was not complete (arms and shoulder bones were missing - possibly eaten by a shark - perhaps even why this small guy, a baby, died.)

    And finally just tiny useless calcium bone deposits (of the modern whale) that are just loosely floating inside the flesh, which is still red meat of its land animal ancestor, not fish-like flesh.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Come back in some what more than 10,000 years and these tiny useless calcium deposits will be gone, if whales have not become extinct.
    Evolution is a still continuing and continuous process.* - Each generation is very much like the parents, but not exactly like the parents.
    *But it is not correct to state the evolution proceeds only by chance genetic variation followed by "environmental selection" of the "fittest." Everyone recognizes that man has selected for the high milk production cow, etc. but less recognized is that totally useless vestigial features, which cost energy to make, such as the vestigial traces of the whales leg bones (the tiny "floating calcium deposits” of the third figure above) will be selected against by the evolving creature its self, not by the environment, and eventually disappear.

    PS As Fraggle pointed out only relatively recent drastic (Like land creature becoming a sea only creature) evolutionary changes have any chance of leaving a COMPLETE record of all the intermediate stages.

    Hell except for the trilobites, which existed by the billions, we are fortunate to even find a complete skeleton. For them we have fossils of the 10 major orders and hundreds of evolutionary stages in each order for all but the oldest orders.

    I can only post three images, but three images of the 10 different orders of trilobites are posted here:
    If you go there and click on the link for any of the orders you can see images of the dozens of major subdivision of that evolutionary order. Each major subdivision of an order has several dozen slightly different evolutionary stage within that subdivision - That is about 30,000 stages of evolution with fossil records - is that complete enough for you?

    Perhaps you think an evil God carefully deposited all these orders in rocks one layer over another in just the sequence to agree with their evolutionary sequence to trick humans who can think (but you were not fooled as don't do so.)
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2011
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, they're not. They are all slightly different. After one generation those differences are _very_ slight. After a hundred generations they might be noticeable - the fish might be bigger or smaller, or have larger fins, or be a different color, or have slightly different eyes. After a thousand generations they might be even more different. Those fins might be really thick now, and might let them prop their heads up near the water to breathe more easily in low-oxygen water. After ten thousand they might be able to waddle on them just a little. After a hundred thousand they might be able to waddle pretty fast.

    If you doubt such a thing could happen - look at a mudskipper.

    We've actually seen new species evolve. Hard to claim it's science fiction when it's actually happening.

    Sure there are. Here's a list of transitional fossils we've found showing the progression of land mammal to whale:

  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Fossil data can creates a problem that needs to be faced. This is due to the discontinuous nature of the data. Say I made a llong trail of popcorn based on some winding design. Next, I let the birds eat most of the popcorn, until the final number of popcorn pieces is roughly in proportion to the modern fossil data percentage relative to all the possible data.

    Is the sparse and random popcorn that is left enough to give an accurate picture of the original popcorn design? The answer is maybe but not yes. The other question is, is the smaller percent of scattered random piece enough to infer that there was an original order to the popcorn design? Maybe not. Even if true, the data does not say so.

    Say we go into this experiment of determining the original popcrn design, but with an image of a Darwian design already in mind. Whether this image is correct or not is not really relavant. Regardless, any starting image will make us what to assume the small number of popcrn somehow belongs as expected.

    This possible set of problems is why science theory needs to have predictive value for the future, and not just extrapolative value into an assumed design. If a theory can't predict the future, and can avoid haivng to do so, you can still pretend all the biased your expectations are true. This where were are.

    Evolution has left out some variables that could give it predictive value. The evolution of life reflects the loss of entropy within simply molecules in favor of increasingly ordered and integrated molecular arrangements. This is anything but random since the lowering configurational entropy follows energy considerations.

    It is not coincidence that the most energy intensive process of the cell involves segregating cations into lower entropy, while increasing the potential energy within the membrane. That is also the direction everything goes as it evolves, with some lines taking a faster track toward lowered entropy.
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2011
  22. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    So in the real community of living things today, you have to have a characteristic favorable to the animal or plant, to be able to change the animal in question. To a different form or "evolved" animal or plant, if not the characteristic just is not present in the Genotype of that particular specie or become receive this is proved hundred of times in our daily genetic classes or studies. Now when a characteristic becomes dominant all the animals from that specie have that characteristic. We have to realize the following we have fossils let's say million of years old, but we have no fossils from the same specie thousand of years old, and you guys are saying the fossilization of a carcass is difficult, humm, is very convenient for the intermediate forms not to be in the fossil record now remember the following
    Evolution has never been observed.
    Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    There are no transitional fossils.
    The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
    Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
    Once again I want to see pictures not drawings of transitional fossils.
  23. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Hey Joe is everything is by random, Why you are still here?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page