Denial of evolution IV

[Trippy]

well, if you think america is a democracy then you have ALOT of reserach to do..I personally would never judge a nation by its leaders. But thats just me since the leaders of my country are children who cant see the big picture(i live in ireland)

I don't think it is.
I live in a country that generally ranks higher than America for most measure of Social, Economic, Political and Press freedom.

However.

I am continually being told by Americans that America is a democracy, and is the largest democracy in the world and so on and so forth, so...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . the leaders of most nations are clearly not representivive of the nation itself.

Many nations have no democratic system, and those aren't the ones I'm talking about. The leaders of the USA, the UK, Japan, Brazil, Israel, Australia, etc., are elected by their people. It's a complicated process but ultimately the people do have considerable power in selecting a leader. If they choose not to execute it because it's too much trouble or because they're cynical or because they trust people who lie to them when they should know better, well then that must be the way they want the system to work. In that case the leader they end up with truly does represent them. As it's often said, "People get the leaders they deserve."

Do you really think nations in general want war? yet, wars are waged. You see the problem here.

If people in democratic nations vote for leaders who want war, it's difficult to turn around and say that those people didn't really want war. Americans wanted war after 9/11, for example.

However, we're getting way off topic here. My point remains that regardless of how political leaders achieve their power, the path to becoming acknowledged as a leading scientist is not the same kind of path.

Im actauly talking specifically about areas of scinece in relation to the opinion of its leaders and pointing out that we should not simply take our opinions from these people no matter how "high up" but rather educate ourselves so we can asses the data and critically form our own opinions.

You're essentially describing the peer review process. That's one of the many beautiful features of the scientific method. It is not necessary for everyone to peer-review everything. The scientific method itself is trustworthy. All work is peer-reviewed by enough people, who themselves have proven to be trustworthy, that we can trust them to do a valid peer review.

Your suggestion is preposterous. You can't really be seriously proposing that none of us should accept the findings of the leading scientists in every field, that instead we should get PhDs and then do original research until we are as smart as those guys are, and we can finally understand what they're doing? Most people don't even have bachelor's degrees. There's no way they can possibly understand what the leading scientists are doing, much less formulate their own opinion on it.

What you're saying is that we should not trust scientists. That is pure and utter bullshit. We've spent five centuries developing a robust, reliable scientific method that specifically makes it possible for us to trust scientists.

(and dont worry i know most poeple are unwilling to do that)

It's not that they're unwilling. It's because they're unable. You can't peer-review the work of any of the leaders in their fields until you know almost as much as they do. That's the essence of the peer review process! You have to be almost as good as the guy you're peer reviewing, otherwise you won't be able to understand his work well enough to look for flaws. But you only have to be almost as good, so there are a whole lot of you at that level and that's enough people to do a trustworthy peer review.

well, if you think america is a democracy then you have ALOT of reserach to do.

Excuse me, but I have lived here since 1943! I have a university education, I'm a teacher and a published writer. I've worked in many government agencies but I've also marched against the government and I am a member of a "third party." How much more "research" do you want me to do? I know how this place works!

By making ridiculous statements like that you are really making a fool of yourself. I hope that's what you intended, because it's working.

I personally would never judge a nation by its leaders. But thats just me since the leaders of my country are children who cant see the big picture (i live in ireland)

Your people don't have to be children. Ireland has a very good educational system. If young people grow up to be adults who are naive and uninterested in knowing how things work and making them better, then that's the life they've chosen. They will get the leaders they deserve.

Besides, Ireland has only been a free country for about four generations. That's not long enough for a downtrodden colony to become a fully functional democracy. Just ask the people in Africa, who have had fewer generations of freedom than you have. It took the USA almost that long just to abolish slavery.

My point stands: You can't possibly judge the work of a leading scientist without being a very good scientist yourself. Do you have a PhD? If not, how the heck do you expect to understand any of this???

You sound like one of the precocious teenagers who pop up on SciForums with annoying regularity. "I just completed my second year of university physics and I've discovered the flaw in the Theory of Relativity."

Yeah right dude.

 

[Zenithar66]

wow

Many nations have no democratic system, and those aren't the ones I'm talking about. The leaders of the USA, the UK, Japan, Brazil, Israel, Australia, etc., are elected by their people. It's a complicated process but ultimately the people do have considerable power in selecting a leader. If they choose not to execute it because it's too much trouble or because they're cynical or because they trust people who lie to them when they should know better, well then that must be the way they want the system to work. In that case the leader they end up with truly does represent them. As it's often said, "People get the leaders they deserve

thats some strange logic you have for someone who claims to be educated. Are you saying that obama going back on all his promises or people in america being forced to ware stickers and masks becuae they didnt choose to take vaccines is the president they deserve? Do you think those people expected the god obama to do what hes done. He has expanded the war in afghanistan and iraq and started new wars.

"If people in democratic nations vote for leaders who want war, it's difficult to turn around and say that those people didn't really want war. Americans wanted war after 9/11, for example.

that is one of the most infantile statmenets I've ever heard. Simply becuase the leader(who is mostly under the control of the MIC and large corporations anyway) is a bloodthirsty warmongerer does NOT reflect what the people want! If that was true, then why have we see war protests on such a scale since war began!...this is some very odd logic you are emplying. It seems you have simply bought what you have been sold about "democracy". Obama promised to withdraw the troops, so dont imply that the people voted for soemone who wanted war! wake up.

However, we're getting way off topic here. My point remains that regardless of how political leaders achieve their power, the path to becoming acknowledged as a leading scientist is not the same kind of path.You're essentially describing the peer review process. That's one of the many beautiful features of the scientific method. It is not necessary for everyone to peer-review everything. The scientific method itself is trustworthy. All work is peer-reviewed by enough people, who themselves have proven to be trustworthy, that we can trust them to do a valid peer review.[/]

Is this discounting the fraud that does and has gone on? You should read A history of science to find out just how much. Of course, we are also simply assuming that these people are trustworthy which is a dangerous game since the medical industry(which is boht involved in the scientific community and government) killed more people in 2010(or 2009 cant remember ill get the stats for you should you care) then ANYTHGN else!(mostly through misdiagnosis)

And i'd hazzard a guess that most people would trust the medical industry.
Oh, and if you truly trust scientists(dont worry im not an idiot who thinks there all money crazy madmen intent on elevating there status,) then maybe you should do some resarch on GMO's, flouride in your water and aspartame in your food and then see whats trustworthy.

Your suggestion is preposterous. You can't really be seriously proposing that none of us should accept the findings of the leading scientists in every field, that instead we should get PhDs and then do original research until we are as smart as those guys are, and we can finally understand what they're doing? Most people don't even have bachelor's degrees. There's no way they can possibly understand what the leading scientists are doing, much less formulate their own opinion on it.

where did i suggest that! Im not saying people need to do the research teh scientists did or get a degree. I am saying we should not take anybodys word for anythign but LOOK at the published research and alternative views on that ressearch and come to our own decision. And when i said most people wont do that i meant most wont educate themselves and make their own decisions, thats why we live in a world of compliancy and fear.

What you're saying is that we should not trust scientists. That is pure and utter bullshit. We've spent five centuries developing a robust, reliable scientific method that specifically makes it possible for us to trust scientists.

Actually Im not saying you CANT trust a scientist, just that we should not put them on a pedastal. Most are specialized and NOT synthesisers by any means, they may have other interests but most try to discover lifes mystreries through a very specialised set of lenses. Lets not forget there is rarly consensus among scientists so who then can you trust? its about coming to your own decision(which most wont do).if you want to trust a scientist or an organization thats your right to do so, but i simply dont take anythign on authority anymore. I must see the evidence for made claims. For instance, we are TOLD by dentists that flouride is not bad for you, though its a poison waste product of the fertilizar industry that destroys bones and cause cancer as well as neurological problems in lab rats. It is now infact utterly proven that flouride is both carcinogenic and a slow killer in that it is a bio accumilator. SOOO. why is it not taken out of the water in america(98 percent of europe doesnt use it). And you have to understand that both science(peer reivew and tests) and "big pharma"
were involved in putting this through, therefor they know the dangers, therefore, trust them at your own risk.

It's not that they're unwilling. It's because they're unable. You can't peer-review the work of any of the leaders in their fields until you know almost as much as they do. That's the essence of the peer review process!

Im not asking people to peer rivew these scientists, just to critically analyse(if they are able) what they are being told instead of blindly accepting it.

Excuse me, but I have lived here since 1943! I have a university education, I'm a teacher and a published writer. I've worked in many government agencies but I've also marched against the government and I am a member of a "third party." How much more "research" do you want me to do? I know how this place works!

Unfortunatly your patriotic appeal does nothign for your credibilaty since you clearly havent researched the very agency you worked for.
I simply dont think you do know "how this place works"..but im sure you have a cosy world view that you rienforece daily. How bout studyign some of the things i mentioned above(unless you already have which would be even stranger what with your "trustingness").

By making ridiculous statements like that you are really making a fool of yourself. I hope that's what you intended, because it's working.Your people don't have to be children. Ireland has a very good educational system. If young people grow up to be adults who are naive and uninterested in knowing how things work and making them better, then that's the life they've chosen. They will get the leaders they deserve.

none of what you said stops the fact that they indeed are children and actaully idiots, and that the average person on the street here is wholly uneducated.




Besides, Ireland has only been a free country for about four generations. That's not long enough for a downtrodden colony to become a fully functional democracy. Just ask the people in Africa, who have had fewer generations of freedom than you have. It took the USA almost that long just to abolish slavery.

free? you think that beign told to re-vote on lisbon simply becuase they didnt like the answer was free? come wake up.
America is turnign into an orwellian fashist state, ireland is not far behind.
You indeed have more reserach to conduct.

My point stands: You can't possibly judge the work of a leading scientist without being a very good scientist yourself. Do you have a PhD? If not, how the heck do you expect to understand any of this???

this is a presumption and its very dicouraging to here, I can under stand alot of science and critically analyse the world around me, yet i have no PHd? and so can many others. I have been reading papers lately and studying about abcsission in leaves(mind blowign process). I have really come to understand this process from readign peer reviewed papers so that blows your point out of the water. its an elitist view that you have and i suggest rethinking it.

You sound like one of the precocious teenagers who pop up on SciForums with annoying regularity. "I just completed my second year of university physics and I've discovered the flaw in the Theory of Relativity."

Yeah right dude.

your maturity inspires me, must be all those years working in government.

 

[iceaura]

You didnt answer the question of why wasnt there a first time DNA supercoiled as evidently there was

No, there wasn't.

Do you really think the hypothetical first cell was simple? yet it was the first one

There was no first cell, according to Darwinian evolutionary theory. If you understood Darwinian theory, you would know that. It's basic.

“
yes, i know nothing about darwinian evolution, you got me. I've now been accused of this on two forums and its hard to swallow.

Well, what's stopping you from getting your nose out of the creationist bilge and taking a few good classes in evolutionary theory?

And quit posting creationist garbage on forums like this one, meanwhile. All your threads here would be cesspooled immediately were it not for the tolerance - essentially, a form of noblesse oblige - of the moderators. They are being kind, for essentially political reasons.

You are not actually debating anyone, or asking real questions - you are playing a familiar role, exemplifying a type that shows up in places like this every couple of weeks. The people who respond to you are just playing along, trying to see if they can put things in just the right way so you can grasp them.

I respect your position enough to deal with it directly - you're welcome.

 

[iceaura]

are did you read my other posts, i am simply inquiring and asking for feedback on relevant and often unasked questions.

1) They aren't relevant,

2) they get asked all the time by religious fundies who wander in to enlighten us with this brand new insight they found on some creationist blog (you are just the latest in a long, long line of people who read the same creationist swill you did, last month and the months before and last year and five and ten and twenty and thirty years ago),

3) you have demonstrated that you will not listen to the answers.

For example: the point is not that there were plenty of sources of nitrogen for the early prercursors of what hundreds of millions of years later came to be living beings with DNA - the point is that fact is junior high school "earth science". Look back at your source for the "nitrogen question", and consider this:

either that source is obliviously ignorant about very elementary, basic, children's education stuff

or they are deliberately playing you - sending you out to essentially embarrass yourself on forums like this one.

That's if we give you the great benefit of the doubt.

 

[Zenithar66]

Skeptic=Creationist?

No, there wasn't.

There was no first cell, according to Darwinian evolutionary theory. If you understood Darwinian theory, you would know that. It's basic.

two main problems with your statment.

1. if you belive there was no first cell simply because its according to darwinian theory then your already in trouble, since logic suggests that indeed, if there are cells now, and all cells are the result of multiple cell division over long periods of time then it follows there was a "mother cell"
its simple logic freind.

2. the problem is that indeed neo darwinism DOES infact hold to the doctrine that there was a first cell, where do you think cells came from?
the first cell of course!



[/quote]Well, what's stopping you from getting your nose out of the creationist bilge and taking a few good classes in evolutionary theory? [/quote]

So, I take it creationists read molecular biolgoy of the cell and take detailed notes along with hyperlinking those notes to papers I am constantly downloading? yeah sounds like a creationist to me.
What you must realise is that, even if i ask questions that have been asked by creationist that dosent make one nor does it make teh question less valid i would hope. If these questions on topo and my future questinos have been refuted somehow it would be alot quicker for you to simply link me up to those refutations.

Considering you feel there was no first cell i fee it is you who is in dire need of some classes on evolutionary theory.

And quit posting creationist garbage on forums like this one, meanwhile. All your threads here would be cesspooled immediately were it not for the tolerance - essentially, a form of noblesse oblige - of the moderators. They are being kind, for essentially political reasons.

What is this some kind of threat? All i have done is ask questinos and indeed i have debated, so your observation is simply mute. I dont see why the thread would be cesspooled since you dont have to actually visit them unless you are doing it simply to spread nonsense about someone asking questins automatically beign a creationist! come man, grow up and address the issue i have brought up.(like pete has done.)

You are not actually debating anyone, or asking real questions - you are playing a familiar role, exemplifying a type that shows up in places like this every couple of weeks. The people who respond to you are just playing along, trying to see if they can put things in just the right way so you can grasp them.

I must admit this is crazy, if i am being soemhow played for simpy asking questions and being skeptical i really cant imagine what kind of a place this is? I am in all honesty looking for answers and i simply would not except...I cant explain it ...so god did it. I am not a creationist, but certaily not an evolutionist either.

I advise you to, in future threads, try to address my questions or debate me on them rather then simply calling me a creationist.
The strange thing is i have never come across a creationist talking about topoisomerases, so i wonder what gave you the idea i was a creationist?
because if it was simply that fact that i was questioning and skeptical about the mechanisms invoked to expalin natures adaptions at micro level then it shows your bias elitist mindset.

If you have no debate but just want to spread tripe, i suggest you dont visit my threads thanks

your best bet is to do a bit of research on the "creationist bilge" I posted and try to give me a plausible way that top


I respect your position enough to deal with it directly - you're welcome.[/QUOTE]

 

[Zenithar66]

wow

They aren't relevant,

maybe not to you, but to me yes. I now know thanks to my question that it is ineeed irelevant only in the way that it is not a problem. But the fact that i learned that here shows that the question was indeed relevant as a question....if you got that

2) they get asked all the time by religious fundies who wander in to enlighten us with this brand new insight they found on some creationist blog (you are just the latest in a long, long line of people who read the same creationist swill you did, last month and the months before and last year and five and ten and twenty and thirty years ago),

so becuase they are asked(and by they I assume you mean my ONE queston on nitrogen?) means nothign to me, i didnt know that, and i am not here to ask questions that i know the answer too.
I admit i most likely did read creationist swill and now i know that.
It was my first post and i am not reserached in the matter of nitrogen fixation so i thought there was a problem there. I wont be posting any more questions on topics i am not familiar with, happy?

3) you have demonstrated that you will not listen to the answers.

For example: the point is not that there were plenty of sources of nitrogen for the early prercursors of what hundreds of millions of years later came to be living beings with DNA - the point is that fact is junior high school "earth science". Look back at your source for the "nitrogen question", and consider this:

Now i suspect your spreading disinfo and its painful, i clearly listened to the answers since i admitted(after reading the answers and researching) that i was totally wrong! so wake up please and read the thread before posting such trash. maybe it is junior high stuff, but do you really remember much from then? cos i dont. So to me it seemed relevant, now i know its not, chill the fook out!

either that source is obliviously ignorant about very elementary, basic, children's education stuff

or they are deliberately playing you - sending you out to essentially embarrass yourself on forums like this one.

That's if we give you the great benefit of the doubt

why would i be embarraased? i asked a question and learned from it by accepting it was irrelevant! do you find many creationist doing this?
didnt think so...

 

[Pete]

No, there wasn't [a first time DNA supercoiled].
...
There was no first cell, according to Darwinian evolutionary theory. If you understood Darwinian theory, you would know that. It's basic.

I don't get it.
Do you just mean that there wasn't a clearly defined transition for those events?

 

[Genotype]

The first 'cell' could not have been called a cell at all. Cells evolved gradually from self-replicating molecules.

 

[Pete]

The first 'cell' could not have been called a cell at all.

See, that doesn't make sense. If it could not have been called a cell, then it wasn't the first cell, right?

Perhaps you mean that the first self replicator was not a cell?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

See, that doesn't make sense. If it could not have been called a cell, then it wasn't the first cell, right?

"What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

 

[Genotype]

See, that doesn't make sense. If it could not have been called a cell, then it wasn't the first cell, right?

Perhaps you mean that the first self replicator was not a cell?

Yep. Later it gradually acquired the characteristics of what we now consider to be a cell. So how could there have been a 'first cell' since it was a gradual change? At what point should we consider it to be 'a cell'?

 

[Zenithar66]

huh

Yep. Later it gradually acquired the characteristics of what we now consider to be a cell. So how could there have been a 'first cell' since it was a gradual change? At what point should we consider it to be 'a cell'?

so what was there then? if there wasnt a first cell, what was there a first group of cells?

 

[Pete]

so what was there then? if there wasnt a first cell, what was there a first group of cells?

I think the point being made is that there is a continuum between cells and not cells. The borderline isn't well defined.
You see, at the molecular level a cell isn't a well defined thing - it's an association of chemical reactions all doing their own thing. In cells we see now, that association is usually very tight - many cellular molecules can't function outside that intracellular environment.
But it doesn't have to be that way. The association between coexisting reactions can be very loose.

For example, consider the lipid bilayer, which we might speculate is a defining feature of a cell.
But, a lipid bilayer doesn't have to be specifically constructed by cellular mechanisms - it can form on its own just like a bubble.

If a bunch of chemicals happen to develop a self sustaining reaction in a wet environment that involves ampiphilic molecules as a step or byproduct, then lipid bilayer bubbles will form incidentally.

If a lipid bilayer bubble incidentally forms around some chemicals undergoing a self sustaining reaction, does that make it a cell?
What would happen if the reactions changed the environment inside the surrounding bubble to reduce the reaction sustainability?
What would happen if the reactions changed the environment inside the surrounding bubble to improve the reaction sustainability?

 

[wellwisher]

What is always overlooked in biology, is the importance of water when it comes to life functions. Water is more than just a solvent for the organics of life, since it participates in all life processes. For example, the DNA double helix also has a double helix of water, with the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on the bases designed to attached to water. If we call DNA a double helix, we start off out of touch with reality. I suppose we need to start simple first, but we should also tell about the real.

Tests has been done, that have cells and various aspects of life, in a wide range of solvents to see what would happen. Only water allows life as well as the functioning of most enzymes. To ignore water with the chemical processes of life, as we know it, will result in logic problems, since you will never find cause and effect.

Since water is needed for life and water is a continuum within the cell, water is a way to coordinate everything. In other words, a medium that is everywhere and is also needed to make everything work so life is possible means it is the great coordinator of life.

For example, say the DNA was packed. Next, say we increase the potential energy within the water around the DNA. The new aqueous equilibrium means the DNA needs to unpack. The DNA will try to fluff out, as the water enters and solvates the DNA. But since the DNA is coiled, there will steric hindrance problem. There result will be stored potential energy remaining within the coil. Now Topoisimerase has potential energy to help uncoil the DNA into an equilibrium. There is probably as sense of direction since strain is focused where it will get cut.

The fastest moving things in water are hydrogen protons and hydroxyl. Even before Topoisimerase reaches the DNA water is already there transmitting potential. The large and sluggish Topoisimerase, loaded with its own hydrated water, arrives with its water merging with the local water potential. This conforms the enzyme.

Say we had no Topoisimerase but we do have packed DNA. We still have water and water potential, since water was there from the beginning. As we pump up the potential, strain can amplify. This can be done in many ways including surface tension with dissolved organics.

We don't need a perfect enzyme near the DNA since we have potential energy in the local water and within the straining DNA coil. An analogy is we may need a match to light a candle, but a tiny spark can ignite methane. The local potential energy at the DNA is like the methane analogy, with almost anything like the spark. But it is all about equilibrium, with only certain enzymes defining equilibrium by being near the DNA. You don't have to direct them since equilibrium defines where to do.

 

[Zenithar66]

...

I think the point being made is that there is a continuum between cells and not cells. The borderline isn't well defined.
You see, at the molecular level a cell isn't a well defined thing - it's an association of chemical reactions all doing their own thing. In cells we see now, that association is usually very tight - many cellular molecules can't function outside that intracellular environment.
But it doesn't have to be that way. The association between coexisting reactions can be very loose.

For example, consider the lipid bilayer, which we might speculate is a defining feature of a cell.
But, a lipid bilayer doesn't have to be specifically constructed by cellular mechanisms - it can form on its own just like a bubble.

If a bunch of chemicals happen to develop a self sustaining reaction in a wet environment that involves ampiphilic molecules as a step or byproduct, then lipid bilayer bubbles will form incidentally.

If a lipid bilayer bubble incidentally forms around some chemicals undergoing a self sustaining reaction, does that make it a cell?
What would happen if the reactions changed the environment inside the surrounding bubble to reduce the reaction sustainability?
What would happen if the reactions changed the environment inside the surrounding bubble to improve the reaction sustainability?

well personally I just cant base my world view around this kind of speculation...my argument would be for instance, lets just imagine what you say happened and indeed cells began to grow ever more complex from there, lets say mitosis evolves later(which it obviously did since its here now), what you have to belive is that many things required for mitosis coevolved and i cant do that. Also when a cell divides it doesnt get smaller, even though you are essentially cutting it in half. When you cut a carrot in half, then cut those in halfs etc etc they get smaller and smaller, not so with a cell becuase(by largely unkwown mechanissm) it somehow amazingly co ordinates its cell division with its growth so that daughter cells remain approximatly the same size!!
what we do know is that this is performed by many cdc's that monitor the intra and extracellualr enviroment through signals produced by other cells etc and therefore they regulate the cells size so that when it divides the organneles also divide(many can only be made from themselves today, centrosome for example) and both cells have approximatly the same material...

now, if you want to first belive what you said, which is fine with me, but then also belvie that when mitosis evolved these regulatory mechnaisms were also there, well, thats just invoking a miracle..

 

[Zenithar66]

What is always overlooked in biology, is the importance of water when it comes to life functions. Water is more than just a solvent for the organics of life, since it participates in all life processes. For example, the DNA double helix also has a double helix of water, with the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on the bases designed to attached to water. If we call DNA a double helix, we start off out of touch with reality. I suppose we need to start simple first, but we should also tell about the real.

Tests has been done, that have cells and various aspects of life, in a wide range of solvents to see what would happen. Only water allows life as well as the functioning of most enzymes. To ignore water with the chemical processes of life, as we know it, will result in logic problems, since you will never find cause and effect.

Since water is needed for life and water is a continuum within the cell, water is a way to coordinate everything. In other words, a medium that is everywhere and is also needed to make everything work so life is possible means it is the great coordinator of life.

For example, say the DNA was packed. Next, say we increase the potential energy within the water around the DNA. The new aqueous equilibrium means the DNA needs to unpack. The DNA will try to fluff out, as the water enters and solvates the DNA. But since the DNA is coiled, there will steric hindrance problem. There result will be stored potential energy remaining within the coil. Now Topoisimerase has potential energy to help uncoil the DNA into an equilibrium. There is probably as sense of direction since strain is focused where it will get cut.

The fastest moving things in water are hydrogen protons and hydroxyl. Even before Topoisimerase reaches the DNA water is already there transmitting potential. The large and sluggish Topoisimerase, loaded with its own hydrated water, arrives with its water merging with the local water potential. This conforms the enzyme.

Say we had no Topoisimerase but we do have packed DNA. We still have water and water potential, since water was there from the beginning. As we pump up the potential, strain can amplify. This can be done in many ways including surface tension with dissolved organics.

We don't need a perfect enzyme near the DNA since we have potential energy in the local water and within the straining DNA coil. An analogy is we may need a match to light a candle, but a tiny spark can ignite methane. The local potential energy at the DNA is like the methane analogy, with almost anything like the spark. But it is all about equilibrium, with only certain enzymes defining equilibrium by being near the DNA. You don't have to direct them since equilibrium defines where to do.

you are speaking of a hypothetical time when topo wastn needed, i am talking about when it indeed was needed.

your point about water was very pertinant and it also must make us think of the sheer odds of favorable reactions in such an enviroment.
if it existed at all!

 

[Pete]

well personally I just cant base my world view around this kind of speculation

Of course not. Why would anyone?

...my argument would be for instance, lets just imagine what you say happened and indeed cells began to grow ever more complex from there, lets say mitosis evolves later(which it obviously did since its here now), what you have to believe is that many things required for mitosis coevolved and i cant do that. Also when a cell divides it doesnt get smaller, even though you are essentially cutting it in half. When you cut a carrot in half, then cut those in halfs etc etc they get smaller and smaller, not so with a cell becuase(by largely unkwown mechanissm) it somehow amazingly co ordinates its cell division with its growth so that daughter cells remain approximatly the same size!!
what we do know is that this is performed by many cdc's that monitor the intra and extracellualr enviroment through signals produced by other cells etc and therefore they regulate the cells size so that when it divides the organneles also divide(many can only be made from themselves today, centrosome for example) and both cells have approximatly the same material...

now, if you want to first belive what you said, which is fine with me, but then also belvie that when mitosis evolved these regulatory mechnaisms were also there, well, thats just invoking a miracle..

No, you don't have to believe that at all. That's not how evolution works.

Going back a couple of posts, here's a recap of my understanding of enzyme development according to evolution theory:

• New improved enzymes are (almost?) always slight modifications or combinations of existing enzymes
• The first organism to use a new improved enzyme does not need it. Ie the new enzyme makes an existing process more efficient.
• The first organism to use a new improved biomolecular process does not need it. Ie the new process makes the organism more successful.
• The first time a beneficial new biomolecular process occurs is always a serendipitous result of existing mechanisms.
• From then on, marginal improvements in the process drive marginal improvements in enzymes, always with the possibility of serendipitous new processes emerging from interactions of existing enzymes.

So evolution theory does not say that mechanisms must arise by chance as they are needed. Mechanisms must first be useful, but not necessary.

you are speaking of a hypothetical time when topo wastn needed, i am talking about when it indeed was needed.

And that's a problem, because that's not when evolution theory suggests it originated.

 

[Zenithar66]

what happened to talkign about topo! only joking this is intersting

Of course not. Why would anyone?

what i mean is i would not hold to these theories as though they are true, which many i have spoken with do, and scientists speak like this also, we must not become too attached to speculation of a hypothetical time, but you appear very much aware of this which is good.

No, you don't have to believe that at all. That's not how evolution works.

of course you dont HAVE to belive it, but the point is many would simply ascribe evolution to things they are studying without considering are the mechanissms actually up to the task beyond mere speculation. for instance i recently read a paper on the evolution of meiosis from mitosis and the author was talking of WHY did sex evolve and what are the advantages etc, instead of stopping and considreing is it a realistic belief to hold that sex could co evolve so many intricate mechanisms via the proposed mechanism. Many papers on and abstracts about sex consider WHY instead of HOW..




[/quote]Going back a couple of posts, here's a recap of my understanding of enzyme development according to evolution theory:

• New improved enzymes are (almost?) always slight modifications or combinations of existing enzymes[/quote]
  
  even if this is true, there is no other reason other then belief to suggest that any pre existing enzyme could be co opted at the "right time".
  
  
  
  
  
• The first organism to use a new improved enzyme does not need it. Ie the new enzyme makes an existing process more efficient.
  
  When i say need, what i mean is that if another component is not there along with certain other ones, the whole system breaks down, and therefore , since they are here now, they must have been there when they were "needed". Cells divide now, cells divided in the past, the first cell/cells divided also(this of course accordign to the common view) but for those cells to have "coevolved" what they needed to regulate that division with growth is pushing the boundaries of credulity....but you see that is exaclty what is implied since...evolutions mechanissm MUST have done it, and they are here now, so the logic goes(according to "evolutionsts") that indeed, those regulations were there since cells didnt die out and are here now!
  
  its the same with the eye argument that i hear from everyone from dawkins to eugenie scott to textbooks and even a 2006 paper that tried to summarise everythign we "know" about the eyes evolution...essentially it was all speculation based on the "fact" that evolutions mechanisms did it...
  instead of tryign to figure out how mount improbable was climbed, they should question whether the mechanisms invoked are up to the task..
  i personally am wholly unconvinved by argumetns about eye evolutoin because every single one of them(at least what ive heard) trivializes the whole proccess by not even mentioning the molecular aspect and its kind of laughable they should leave that out! I also feel that peopel opposing evolution should do alot more reseach becuase all they ever talk about is teh eye and the flagellum, even ten years after they first did!
  
  
  
  
  

  [*]The first organism to use a new improved biomolecular process does not need it. Ie the new process makes the organism more successful.

  
  Well, you say this but, wouldnt a DNA that has, in early life of course, supercoiled ahead of the fork(we'll assume the fork is less complex)
  NEED(at least in the abstract sense that if it doesnt unciold, it cant replciate and will die) a way to uncoil this? I dont mean need from a concious point of yearnig, but rather an abstract retrospective kind of way as in...
  
  if x is not there when y is happening, organism dies...there for x is "needed" when y is occuring, there are so many systems like this in the cell i could(and may well) spend an entire therad listing them simply for food for thougth!!
  
  
  
  

  [*]The first time a beneficial new biomolecular process occurs is always a serendipitous result of existing mechanisms.

  
  So the theory goes, but can this be proven? can you prove(as is claimed by a recent paper i read on the evolution of teh girrafes neck) that both the neck AND the higher blood pressure AND the heart co evolved by the mechanisms you invoke? or can you simply belive based on shoddy evidence of point mutations in bacteria...you see, the guys writing that paper are not going to question the mechanism, but rather trust that it DID do it.
  
  did you see those lizards I talked about? (if not i'd love to tell you if you want to know...)
  
  
  

  [*]From then on, marginal improvements in the process drive marginal improvements in enzymes, always with the possibility of serendipitous new processes emerging from interactions of existing enzymes.

  [/quote]
  
  all your doing here is regurgitating the modern synthesis rather then questioning it. Simple question,
  
  
  do you believe that orchids "hit" on both the exact look AND smell(carrion) that the flies living in the area just happened to love by these mechanisms, or can it be proven. And that other flowers unrelated also hit on these.
  
  That flowers "happened " to produce "landing strips" leading into nectar that are only viewable in UV, which insects can luckily see in...
  
  That an orhid "hit on" the pheromone taht makes bees think they are beign attacked, this attracts the wasps and the wasps pollinate the flowers..(P.S check out the hammer orchid, cant explain just look on youtube, amazing! i think its on a vid called sexual encounters of the floral kind)
  
  
  That anitfreeze was "stumbled on" by "co opting" a preexisting enzyme just at the "right time" as the arctive sea was freezing(fish and trees have it)...as is suggested..
  
  That a tree frog who lays her eggs in a carniverous plant doesnt lose her eggs becuase "luckily" thy secrete an enzyme neutralizing the digestive juices by pure chance.(In other words the first time the frogs did this, the juce was there, or "had to be")
  
  That the one place where light was drastically needed, the depths of the sea...MANY creatures have INDEPENDANTLY evolved such amazing featrues,(bioluminescene) that is just pure logic, dark, needs light. why would we expect such an accumulation of mutations? we wouldnt!
  
  That the sperm of the fruit fly(amazingly long for its body, 1000 times longer i think) just happened to "coevovle" its sperm lenght wtih the lenght of the femal ovarian tubes AND that sperm carries in it a substance that kicks the female into high gear and stops her having her usual "siesta" in the midday..
  
  That many plants living just below water "hit on" an amazing solutoin to reach the sun....pneumatocysts! air bags along the vein of the leaf keeping it aflaot, purely genius logic..
  
  That plants in the desert who live underground have "windows" to let the sun in to there below groudn leaves..
  
  
  Or beatles in the same desert (namib deset beatle) have an amazing technological solution now being backward enginered..cant explain just read!! http://www.asknature.org/strategy/dc2127c6d0008a6c7748e4e4474e7aa1 That is just stunning.
  
  All this happened by the proposed mechanisms? is it demonstratable that those dreaded mutations could accrue in such a way?
  I sound like i am simply arguing from incredulity i know this. But i hope you will understand that it is not taht i think...oh it just couldnt have happened, or that i already hold a belief that some supernatural force did it.
  
  Rather i have, and am, constnly reading and assesing the theory and data against the evidcen and so far find it hard to even begin to beleive such a process(which i freely admit occurs and i think things like sexual selection etc are totally fascinating in how they can shape populations). can produce what we see in the natural world..especially when it relates to coevolution of parts etc..its verging on total illogic.
  
  I am open minded and realise i know nothing compared to the experts and therefore am open to be proven utterly wrong!
  
  
  
  
  I read some papers about directed mutations by J cairns and another i cant remmber who wrote it and there point was that bacteria seem to evolve resisttance to things, as well as teh ability to digest previously undigestibel food sources far to fast to be accoutned for by chance..
  and i agree as of now...
  
  again I refer you to the italian wall lizard evolving a damn cecal valve to digest plant matter after beign taken from its island where its diet was 96 percent meat to another island with mosly plant matter. They evolved this brand new structure to digest plant matter in just 36 YEARS(wow), and it was never seen in this particular species before...of course it was used as a way to prove evolution on some forums i was visiting and to destroy creationists etc..I dont really care about that argument because, evolution has clearly occured, but it is taken on faith that random mutations "came up" with this in just 30 generations(evolutionary blink of the eye) and i find this utterly ludacris. ohthers suggest an epiginect solution, but still call it stochastic.
  I advise you too check it out , the paper is on google scholar and give me your thoughts....http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.full.pdf
  
  a few of teh news releases actually have more info!
  
  
  
  
  
  

  So evolution theory does not say that mechanisms must arise by chance as they are needed. Mechanisms must first be useful, but not necessary.

  
  Your right, it dosen't say that, and knowing this should make the wall Lizrard and other events even more unlikly.
  
  Well you are assuming that they dont have to be neccesary, becuase indeed there are certain things that occur in the cell that could not happen withotu other neccesary components..meiosis for instance requres multiple co working functions as stated in a very good paper about the evolution of it..
  
  
  
  "While meiosis almost certainly evolved from mitosis, it has not one but four novel steps: the pairing of homologous chromosomes, the occurrence of extensive recombination between non-sister chromatids during pairing, the suppression of sister-chromatid separation during the first meiotic division, and the absence of chromosome replication during the second meiotic division. This complexity presents a challenge to any Darwinian explanation of meiotic origins. While the simultaneous creation of these new features in one step seems impossible, their step-by-step acquisition via selection of separate mutations seems highly problematic, given that the entire sequence is REQUIRED(my emphasis) for reliable production of haploid chromosome sets"
  
  not my words...http://www.genetics.org/content/181/1/3.full
  
  and this is just the tip of the cellular iceberg, if you want i could name many thigns that simply do not work without other components present..hence the constant suggestions of "co evolution" of these kinds of problematic parts, which is pure speculation.
  
  
  
  I just feel we need to question more and actaully study that wtih which we are accusing the mechanisms of "creating".
  
  
  I just feel we need to question more and actaully study that wtih which we are accusing the mechanisms of "creating".
  
  I am open minded and realise i know nothing compared to the experts and therefore am open to be proven utterly wrong!

 

[Pete]

what i mean is i would not hold to these theories as though they are true, which many i have spoken with do, and scientists speak like this also, we must not become too attached to speculation of a hypothetical time, but you appear very much aware of this which is good.

The specific details of the evolution of specific mechanisms is speculation.
But the theory itself, that complex mechanisms can develop through gradual change... that's something that that seems consistent with everything we observe.
So yes, we speak of evolution as if it as if it's true.

of course you dont HAVE to belive it, but the point is many would simply ascribe evolution to things they are studying without considering are the mechanissms actually up to the task beyond mere speculation. for instance i recently read a paper on the evolution of meiosis from mitosis and the author was talking of WHY did sex evolve and what are the advantages etc, instead of stopping and considreing is it a realistic belief to hold that sex could co evolve so many intricate mechanisms via the proposed mechanism. Many papers on and abstracts about sex consider WHY instead of HOW..

Yes, of course. That's what people do as a matter of course.
When you're evaluating a car, you don't need to know the specifics of how the iron was mined.

It seems to me that you're looking for answers to questions that can't be answered except by speculation, and complaining when people speculate about those answers.

even if this is true, there is no other reason other then belief to suggest that any pre existing enzyme could be co opted at the "right time".

When i say need, what i mean is that if another component is not there along with certain other ones, the whole system breaks down, and therefore , since they are here now, they must have been there when they were "needed". Cells divide now, cells divided in the past, the first cell/cells divided also(this of course accordign to the common view) but for those cells to have "coevolved" what they needed to regulate that division with growth is pushing the boundaries of credulity....but you see that is exaclty what is implied since...evolutions mechanissm MUST have done it, and they are here now, so the logic goes(according to "evolutionsts") that indeed, those regulations were there since cells didnt die out and are here now!

its the same with the eye argument that i hear from everyone from dawkins to eugenie scott to textbooks and even a 2006 paper that tried to summarise everythign we "know" about the eyes evolution...essentially it was all speculation based on the "fact" that evolutions mechanisms did it...
instead of tryign to figure out how mount improbable was climbed, they should question whether the mechanisms invoked are up to the task..
i personally am wholly unconvinved by argumetns about eye evolutoin because every single one of them(at least what ive heard) trivializes the whole proccess by not even mentioning the molecular aspect and its kind of laughable they should leave that out! I also feel that peopel opposing evolution should do alot more reseach becuase all they ever talk about is teh eye and the flagellum, even ten years after they first did!

There is plenty of evidence of enzymes performing more than one function, so yes, there is good reason to believe that prexisting enzymes can be coopted into enabling new functions.

I know what you mean by need. What you seems to be missing is that evolution theory says that if some mechanisms existed before it was needed, then that mechanism must have been useful before it was needed.

Do you see that a mechanism can be useful but not needed?

With eye evolution, you are again looking for details that can never be known. All we can do is speculate of possibilities - and yes, such speculation is useful because it does indeed show that the mechanisms of evolution are potentially up to the task.

Well, you say this but, wouldnt a DNA that has, in early life of course, supercoiled ahead of the fork(we'll assume the fork is less complex) NEED(at least in the abstract sense that if it doesnt unciold, it cant replciate and will die) a way to uncoil this? I dont mean need from a concious point of yearnig, but rather an abstract retrospective kind of way as in...

if x is not there when y is happening, organism dies...there for x is "needed" when y is occuring, there are so many systems like this in the cell i could(and may well) spend an entire therad listing them simply for food for thougth!!

Not necessarily. If a particular DNA sequence sometimes supercoils on duplication and sometimes does not, then it can replicate without a topoisomerase mechanism (ie it doesn't need it), but it will do so more successfully with a topoisomerase mechanism (ie it can use it).

I suspect (but don't know) that supercoiled DNA with at least one free end may untangle itself through random vibrations. Againm such DNA doesn't need topo, but will replicate faster with it.

Remember the randomness of molecular processes, and that a set of genetic information exists across a population, not as a single unit.

So the theory goes, but can this be proven? can you prove(as is claimed by a recent paper i read on the evolution of teh girrafes neck) that both the neck AND the higher blood pressure AND the heart co evolved by the mechanisms you invoke? or can you simply belive based on shoddy evidence of point mutations in bacteria...you see, the guys writing that paper are not going to question the mechanism, but rather trust that it DID do it.

No, it can't be proven. All that can be said (as with any theory) is that it is consistent with what we observe. Not shoddy evidence, either, despite what you might have read elsewhere.

all your doing here is regurgitating the modern synthesis rather then questioning it. Simple question,


do you believe that orchids "hit" on both the exact look AND smell(carrion) that the flies living in the area just happened to love by these mechanisms, or can it be proven. And that other flowers unrelated also hit on these.

That flowers "happened " to produce "landing strips" leading into nectar that are only viewable in UV, which insects can luckily see in...

That an orhid "hit on" the pheromone taht makes bees think they are beign attacked, this attracts the wasps and the wasps pollinate the flowers..(P.S check out the hammer orchid, cant explain just look on youtube, amazing! i think its on a vid called sexual encounters of the floral kind)


That anitfreeze was "stumbled on" by "co opting" a preexisting enzyme just at the "right time" as the arctive sea was freezing(fish and trees have it)...as is suggested..

That a tree frog who lays her eggs in a carniverous plant doesnt lose her eggs becuase "luckily" thy secrete an enzyme neutralizing the digestive juices by pure chance.(In other words the first time the frogs did this, the juce was there, or "had to be")

That the one place where light was drastically needed, the depths of the sea...MANY creatures have INDEPENDANTLY evolved such amazing featrues,(bioluminescene) that is just pure logic, dark, needs light. why would we expect such an accumulation of mutations? we wouldnt!

That the sperm of the fruit fly(amazingly long for its body, 1000 times longer i think) just happened to "coevovle" its sperm lenght wtih the lenght of the femal ovarian tubes AND that sperm carries in it a substance that kicks the female into high gear and stops her having her usual "siesta" in the midday..

That many plants living just below water "hit on" an amazing solutoin to reach the sun....pneumatocysts! air bags along the vein of the leaf keeping it aflaot, purely genius logic..

That plants in the desert who live underground have "windows" to let the sun in to there below groudn leaves..

Or beatles in the same desert (namib deset beatle) have an amazing technological solution now being backward enginered..cant explain just read!! http://www.asknature.org/strategy/dc...48e4e4474e7aa1 That is just stunning.

All this happened by the proposed mechanisms? is it demonstratable that those dreaded mutations could accrue in such a way?
I sound like i am simply arguing from incredulity i know this. But i hope you will understand that it is not taht i think...oh it just couldnt have happened, or that i already hold a belief that some supernatural force did it.

Rather i have, and am, constnly reading and assesing the theory and data against the evidcen and so far find it hard to even begin to beleive such a process(which i freely admit occurs and i think things like sexual selection etc are totally fascinating in how they can shape populations). can produce what we see in the natural world..especially when it relates to coevolution of parts etc..its verging on total illogic.

I am open minded and realise i know nothing compared to the experts and therefore am open to be proven utterly wrong!

You give lots of examples of amazing developments... but the whole point of evolution is that it's only the successful developments that survive. So we obviously don't see orchids that don't get pollinated, fish and trees that can't survive in their environment, frogs whose eggs are eaten by carnivorous plants, fruitflies who can't inseminate or be inseminated, plants living underwater or underground that can't survive there, beetles that live where they can't get enough water, or whatever.

Yes, they are amazing. No, we'll never know the precise details of their evolutionary trajectory. Yes, they are all consistent with evolution.

Some have simple explanations - the easiest in that list is the length of fruitfly ovarian tubes.

I read some papers about directed mutations by J cairns and another i cant remmber who wrote it and there point was that bacteria seem to evolve resisttance to things, as well as teh ability to digest previously undigestibel food sources far to fast to be accoutned for by chance..
and i agree as of now...

That's an important claim, and one that can be directly tested.
But it's also important not to make judgements of probability by intuition - our intuition is woefully inadequate for that task.

again I refer you to the italian wall lizard evolving a damn cecal valve to digest plant matter after beign taken from its island where its diet was 96 percent meat to another island with mosly plant matter. They evolved this brand new structure to digest plant matter in just 36 YEARS(wow), and it was never seen in this particular species before...of course it was used as a way to prove evolution on some forums i was visiting and to destroy creationists etc..I dont really care about that argument because, evolution has clearly occured, but it is taken on faith that random mutations "came up" with this in just 30 generations(evolutionary blink of the eye) and i find this utterly ludacris. ohthers suggest an epiginect solution, but still call it stochastic.
I advise you too check it out , the paper is on google scholar and give me your thoughts....http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.full.pdf

Why do you find it ludicrous, specifically? I'll have a read.

Your right, it dosen't say that, and knowing this should make the wall Lizrard and other events even more unlikly.

Well you are assuming that they dont have to be neccesary, becuase indeed there are certain things that occur in the cell that could not happen withotu other neccesary components..meiosis for instance requres multiple co working functions as stated in a very good paper about the evolution of it..

"While meiosis almost certainly evolved from mitosis, it has not one but four novel steps: the pairing of homologous chromosomes, the occurrence of extensive recombination between non-sister chromatids during pairing, the suppression of sister-chromatid separation during the first meiotic division, and the absence of chromosome replication during the second meiotic division. This complexity presents a challenge to any Darwinian explanation of meiotic origins. While the simultaneous creation of these new features in one step seems impossible, their step-by-step acquisition via selection of separate mutations seems highly problematic, given that the entire sequence is REQUIRED(my emphasis) for reliable production of haploid chromosome sets"

not my words...http://www.genetics.org/content/181/1/3.full

and this is just the tip of the cellular iceberg, if you want i could name many thigns that simply do not work without other components present..hence the constant suggestions of "co evolution" of these kinds of problematic parts, which is pure speculation.

I just feel we need to question more and actaully study that wtih which we are accusing the mechanisms of "creating".

I just feel we need to question more and actaully study that wtih which we are accusing the mechanisms of "creating".

I am open minded and realise i know nothing compared to the experts and therefore am open to be proven utterly wrong!

What you're talking about seems to be the idea of irreducible complexity.

I'll have a look at the meiosis evolution paper.