Denial of Evolution V

[Grumpy]

chinglu

You seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that life is, at it's simplest, different from chemistry. It is not. Definitions of life come in more or less simple forms but it's really an arbitrary line drawn by various individuals at different points on the continuum of simple chemistry to complex lifeforms. At it's simplest life is a molecule able to assemble copies of itself from free chemical compounds in it's environment AND NOTHING MORE! The Last Universal Common Ancestor was far along in comparison and probably separated in time by 100s of millions if not billions of years. Nor was it likely the first form of life to do all the things you think it should, it was just the one lucky enough in the evolutionary crap shoot to survive and have progeny that survived all the way to us. I'm really having difficulty in understanding what your point is. LUCA existed, deal with the implications.

Grumpy

 

[Hipparchia]

I would life to see a proof of this.

I have MIT, Harvard and Oxford links that will show you are wrong.

The theory is not viable if abiogenesis is not viable.

Otherwise, TOE must rest its theory on the magical emergence of life.

Provide the links that you claim support your assertion.

The Theory of Evolution works perfectly well if life originated by any of these means:
a) Divine intervention
b) Abiogenesis
c) pan spermia
d) Deliberate or accidental seeding by aliens

Demonstrate why it does not.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The theory is not viable if abiogenesis is not viable.

The theory of evolution speaks only to the transition from one kind of organism that already exists to another. It is silent about the origin of the first organism, for the very good reason that it cannot have arisen through evolution, and therefore it is outside the realm of the theory.

It is scientists, not science who assume that the first organism must have arisen through abiogenesis. If you read your links carefully, you will see that the writers all make that assumption, often implicitly, but sometimes explicitly--which BTW is much better science!

You need look no further than the top-notch universities in, for example, the Jesuit system. Jesuits pride themselves on the quality of their science courses. Indeed even we atheists regard them as top-notch and encourage our children to apply to Gonzaga, Loyola, Georgetown, etc. The Jesuits do not consider evolution incompatible with divine creation. Even the Pope himself has admitted that much of the Bible is metaphor, and the leaders of virtually all respectable Christian denominations agree. (Obviously I'm excluding the American woo-woo sects here.) The same goes for the Jews and other Abrahamists, if perhaps not so universally among their more conservative branches.

Evolution does not require abiogenesis. Besides, to entertain the supernaturalists' hypothesis for the sake of argument, there's no reason that abiogenesis could not have been part of the gods' methodology.

Hipparchia is 100% correct, although I would add an asterisk to his list noting that divine intervention is not mutually exclusive from any of the other mechanisms on it.

In other words, if I understand the assertions of the supernaturalists correctly, "God can do anything he wants."

 

[Hipparchia]

The theory of evolution speaks only to the transition from one kind of organism that already exists to another. It is silent about the origin of the first organism, for the very good reason that it cannot have arisen through evolution, and therefore it is outside the realm of the theory.

The first part of your statement is true: the theory of evolution deals with transitions between populations of organisms. The second part is misleading to the point of being false.

Evolution, as a term describing survival of the fittest, was almost certainlyat work in prebiotic chemistry. It is one of the things that makes the decision of where to place life/non-life so difficult and ultimately so pointless.

 

[Trippy]

Evolution, as a term describing survival of the fittest, was almost certainlyat work in prebiotic chemistry. It is one of the things that makes the decision of where to place life/non-life so difficult and ultimately so pointless.

In fact I seem to recall linking to some papers in this thread in the last page or two discussing the occurence of evolution in prediotic chemistry.

 

[chinglu]

Provide the links that you claim support your assertion.

The Theory of Evolution works perfectly well if life originated by any of these means:
a) Divine intervention
b) Abiogenesis
c) pan spermia
d) Deliberate or accidental seeding by aliens

Demonstrate why it does not.

I an not prepared to say how life originated. I just know at this time given the latest mainstream evidence abiogenesis is ruled out.

What is the problem with that?

 

[chinglu]

chinglu

You seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that life is, at it's simplest, different from chemistry. It is not. Definitions of life come in more or less simple forms but it's really an arbitrary line drawn by various individuals at different points on the continuum of simple chemistry to complex lifeforms. At it's simplest life is a molecule able to assemble copies of itself from free chemical compounds in it's environment AND NOTHING MORE! The Last Universal Common Ancestor was far along in comparison and probably separated in time by 100s of millions if not billions of years. Nor was it likely the first form of life to do all the things you think it should, it was just the one lucky enough in the evolutionary crap shoot to survive and have progeny that survived all the way to us. I'm really having difficulty in understanding what your point is. LUCA existed, deal with the implications.

Grumpy

Well, it would seem LUCA existed. However, there does not exist a current valid mainstream theory to explain it.

Deal with the implications.

 

[spidergoat]

However, there does not exist a current valid mainstream theory to explain it.

The myth that we have no hypotheses, and no explanations for the origin of life on earth persists. In fact, biologists are considering and testing a long list of possibilities that would explain the shift from non-living to living materials. Here’s a few summarized from Wikipedia.

Primordial Soup—Miller-Urey use a mix of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen to form basic amino acids in the lab.

Deep Sea Vent Theory—Hydrogen saturated, heated, fluids from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor mix with carbon dioxide laden water. Continued chemical energy from the interactions sustains processes that produce simple organic molecules.

Spontaneous Formation of Small Peptides from Amino Acids: Sidney Fox demonstrated that the conversions could occur on their own.

Eigen's hypothesis—Eigen and Schuster argue that some molecules, possibly RNA, can serve as an information storing system that brings about the formation of other information storing systems, or a kind of replication.

Wächtershäuser's hypothesis: Günter Wächtershäuser argues that some compounds come with inboard energy sources like iron sulfides that could release energy and synthesize simply organic molecules. His experiments produced small amounts of dipeptides and tripeptides.

Radioactive beach hypothesis: radioactive elements such as uranium may have concentrated on beaches and become building blocks for life by energizing amino acids, sugars from acetronitrile in water.

Homochirality: The right or left handedness of organic molecules may be explained by the origin of compounds in space.
Self-organization and replication: Under the right circumstances, many non-organic molecules exhibit properties of self-organization and self-replication.

"Genes first" models: the RNA world It has been argued that short RNA molecules could have formed on their own. Cell membranes could have formed from protein-like molecules in heated water. Chemical reactions in clay or on pyrites could have initiated self-replication.

"Metabolism first" models: iron-sulfur world and others. Some theories argue that metabolic processes started first, then self-replication.

Bubbles collecting on the beach could have played a role in forming early, proto-cell membranes.

Autocatalysis Some substances catalyze the production of themselves such as amino adenosine, pentafluorophenyl ester, and amino adenosine triacid ester.

Clay theory Complex organic molecules could have arisen from non-organic replicators such as silicate crystals. It has even been reported that the crystals can transfer information from mother to daughter crystals.

Gold's "Deep-hot biosphere" model Gold argues that life originated miles below the surface of the earth. Microbial life has been found there. And it may be present on other planets.

"Primitive" extraterrestrial life Organic compounds are common in space, and early life may have been transferred here from other planets such as Mars.


Even if none of these hypotheses turn out to be corroborated by empirical investigation, the important point is that there are a number of live hypotheses being considered.​

http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/current-theories-of-abiogenesis.html

 

[chinglu]

The theory of evolution speaks only to the transition from one kind of organism that already exists to another. It is silent about the origin of the first organism, for the very good reason that it cannot have arisen through evolution, and therefore it is outside the realm of the theory.

It is scientists, not science who assume that the first organism must have arisen through abiogenesis. If you read your links carefully, you will see that the writers all make that assumption, often implicitly, but sometimes explicitly--which BTW is much better science!

You need look no further than the top-notch universities in, for example, the Jesuit system. Jesuits pride themselves on the quality of their science courses. Indeed even we atheists regard them as top-notch and encourage our children to apply to Gonzaga, Loyola, Georgetown, etc. The Jesuits do not consider evolution incompatible with divine creation. Even the Pope himself has admitted that much of the Bible is metaphor, and the leaders of virtually all respectable Christian denominations agree. (Obviously I'm excluding the American woo-woo sects here.) The same goes for the Jews and other Abrahamists, if perhaps not so universally among their more conservative branches.

Evolution does not require abiogenesis. Besides, to entertain the supernaturalists' hypothesis for the sake of argument, there's no reason that abiogenesis could not have been part of the gods' methodology.

Hipparchia is 100% correct, although I would add an asterisk to his list noting that divine intervention is not mutually exclusive from any of the other mechanisms on it.

In other words, if I understand the assertions of the supernaturalists correctly, "God can do anything he wants."

1) It is false to conclude that TOW does not purport to explain abiogenesis. The whole purpose of TOE is to provide a theory to explains life as a sequebnce of natural events based on chemistry and physics.

If this is false, then TOE is another religion.

Further, I provided many of the latest mainstream conclusions that demonstrates that TOE is not able to "naturally" explain LUCA.

Now, I am not advocating any alternative theory. I simply do not know.

But, what I do know is any theory will have a very difficult task in naturally emerging a redox cycle (electron transport) in order to construct carbohydrates.

 

[chinglu]

The first part of your statement is true: the theory of evolution deals with transitions between populations of organisms. The second part is misleading to the point of being false.

Evolution, as a term describing survival of the fittest, was almost certainlyat work in prebiotic chemistry. It is one of the things that makes the decision of where to place life/non-life so difficult and ultimately so pointless.

You are wrong to assume TOE is not required to explain the natural emergence of life.

Otherwise, how can it explain the natural emergence of traits?

Further, there have been experiments done at MIT that prove TOE can't even correctly explain acquired traits.

Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061

 

[chinglu]

The myth that we have no hypotheses, and no explanations for the origin of life on earth persists. In fact, biologists are considering and testing a long list of possibilities that would explain the shift from non-living to living materials. Here’s a few summarized from Wikipedia.

Primordial Soup—Miller-Urey use a mix of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen to form basic amino acids in the lab.

Deep Sea Vent Theory—Hydrogen saturated, heated, fluids from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor mix with carbon dioxide laden water. Continued chemical energy from the interactions sustains processes that produce simple organic molecules.

Spontaneous Formation of Small Peptides from Amino Acids: Sidney Fox demonstrated that the conversions could occur on their own.

Eigen's hypothesis—Eigen and Schuster argue that some molecules, possibly RNA, can serve as an information storing system that brings about the formation of other information storing systems, or a kind of replication.

Wächtershäuser's hypothesis: Günter Wächtershäuser argues that some compounds come with inboard energy sources like iron sulfides that could release energy and synthesize simply organic molecules. His experiments produced small amounts of dipeptides and tripeptides.

Radioactive beach hypothesis: radioactive elements such as uranium may have concentrated on beaches and become building blocks for life by energizing amino acids, sugars from acetronitrile in water.

Homochirality: The right or left handedness of organic molecules may be explained by the origin of compounds in space.
Self-organization and replication: Under the right circumstances, many non-organic molecules exhibit properties of self-organization and self-replication.

"Genes first" models: the RNA world It has been argued that short RNA molecules could have formed on their own. Cell membranes could have formed from protein-like molecules in heated water. Chemical reactions in clay or on pyrites could have initiated self-replication.

"Metabolism first" models: iron-sulfur world and others. Some theories argue that metabolic processes started first, then self-replication.

Bubbles collecting on the beach could have played a role in forming early, proto-cell membranes.

Autocatalysis Some substances catalyze the production of themselves such as amino adenosine, pentafluorophenyl ester, and amino adenosine triacid ester.

Clay theory Complex organic molecules could have arisen from non-organic replicators such as silicate crystals. It has even been reported that the crystals can transfer information from mother to daughter crystals.

Gold's "Deep-hot biosphere" model Gold argues that life originated miles below the surface of the earth. Microbial life has been found there. And it may be present on other planets.

"Primitive" extraterrestrial life Organic compounds are common in space, and early life may have been transferred here from other planets such as Mars.


Even if none of these hypotheses turn out to be corroborated by empirical investigation, the important point is that there are a number of live hypotheses being considered.​

http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/current-theories-of-abiogenesis.html

I have already explained, this logic is not valid.

 

[Trippy]

What is the problem with that?

How about the fact that it's wrong, for a start.

 

[chinglu]

How about the fact that it's wrong, for a start.

You and I are different.

I supply undisputed mainstream links to support my conclusions.

Do you have said links to support yours?

 

[Trippy]

Do you have said links to support yours?

Been there, done that.
Acknowledged the limitations in the evidence I have supplied.
Even asked you pointed questions when you disputed their relevance - questions which remain unanswered.

 

[chinglu]

Been there, done that.
Acknowledged the limitations in the evidence I have supplied.
Even asked you pointed questions when you disputed their relevance - questions which remain unanswered.

I have ready confessed, I do not have a answer for the natural emergence of chemicals to life.

Is this what you meant?

 

[spidergoat]

I have already explained, this logic is not valid.

I was simply presenting a list of current possible explanations. Until you have disproved those, the notion that life came from simpler chemical constituents remains.

 

[Trippy]

I have ready confessed, I do not have a answer for the natural emergence of chemicals to life.

Is this what you meant?

No, troll, it is not what I meant.

Do you have any answers yet troll? I asked you some pretty direct questions.

Where do you draw the line between chemicals and life, troll? Is a Virus alive?

 

[Aqueous Id]

You are wrong.

As of 2009, TOE has not explanation for the electron transport mechanism to construct carbohydrates.

You didn't respond to my statement: presumably you don't mean ribose. What does carbohydrate synthesis have to do with the origins of life?

You're assuming that the weight of natural history hangs on this question. It doesn't. It hangs on the evolution by natural selection, and the complex phenomena that run their course in parallel. Oversimplification has no effect.

In 2009, the genome project proved the gene to protect bacteria from the heat of vents did not come until later in the DNA.

You mean your source. Not the project itself. "Prove" is not a word the investigators used. In any case, it's not a show stopper. It's more evidence to put on the scales with a vast weight of other evidence.

Around vents, you have free sulfur that can function as an electron transport mechanism I guess.

And if it's a hydrothermal vent, there is tepid zone a few meters back. Which is how many creatures exploit them today.

So, since sulfur and Oxygen at in the same column of the periodic chart, then O will do.

And a few other essential columns. Especially column V, which is even more energetic.

But, it is now the consensus that life originated in temperate climates. What is the problem with that?

No, read your source again. It said nothing about the origin of life. Nor would any credible source try to conquer the issue as you feel you have done. And to the extent your source addresses climate, it's nothing more than a vague mention.

Unlike volcanic vents where sulfur occurs unbound, in temperate climates Oxygen does not.

You are just reaching. You're making all kinds of assumptions without bothering to establish them. For starters, what are you assuming about the primordial atmosphere, and whether life originated above or below water?

So, we have no viable electron transport mechanism to construct food (carbohydrates). Check the mainstream on this.

I checked, and the mainstream came back and said all food is not created equal. Like these

Or these.

In short, there is no disproof of anything as you seem to think. There is merely best evidence. It all fits together mostly, except at the ragged outer edges.

And that's the mainstream position. If anything, evolutionary biology is marching on, in the same direction it's been in since Darwin discovered natural selection. Nothing's been overturned in terms of the general principles. In fact for the most part it has all been reinforced, as much as any other area of science.

 

[chinglu]

I was simply presenting a list of current possible explanations. Until you have disproved those, the notion that life came from simpler chemical constituents remains.

I have already handled these.

As of 2009, there is no viable mechanism to support electron transport. I have been through that with countless posts.

So, this list is a set of past parts of the theory..

 

[chinglu]

Been there, done that.
Acknowledged the limitations in the evidence I have supplied.
Even asked you pointed questions when you disputed their relevance - questions which remain unanswered.

I am sorry, could you be more specific about this?

I am not trying to evade your debate position, I just cannot connect it.

Thanks.