The origin of life: Cell membranes.

[Cisco Qid]

Lol! You are showing your ignorance, and parochial short-sightedness. "-ise" is a perfectly acceptable form, and is normal in the UK. I speak as a self-confessed grammar Nazi. I too make occasional mistakes, but on this occasion, not guilty.

I looked it up and you are correct.

 

[Temujin]

I looked it up and you are correct.

Thank you. I am frankly astonished, but credit to you.

 

[ferengi]

Thank you. I am frankly astonished, but credit to you.

He did more than you ever have.

 

[DaGeo]

Another triumph of style over substance.

Another anti-evolution argument, in lieu of an argument for ID.

Another gap for God to hide in. At least for a while...

meanwhile, here is the real science:

The Origins of Cellular Life

Understanding the origin of cellular life on Earth requires the discovery of plausible pathways for the transition from complex prebiotic chemistry to simple biology, defined as the emergence of chemical assemblies capable of Darwinian evolution. We have ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Origins of Life II | Biology | Visionlearning

Building on earlier experiments showing how life’s chemical building blocks could form from nonliving material on early Earth, this module explores theories on the next steps needed for life. These include the formation of long polymers, which then fold into complex macromolecules. The module...

www.visionlearning.com

Thought you said “real science” but you show science fiction

 

[DaGeo]

Which misses the point. You don't have and endless supply of time for a functioning membrane. Besides that pretense of a functioning theory for the origin of life.

Some people just have a good imagination, when they do, they create really great fiction

 

[DaGeo]

This is above my pay grade. Perhaps the Lord has big plans for the misunderstood mighty onion.

It’s not above your pay grade. Junk DNA is old “science” nevertheless, worthless obsolete “science” is about all blind faith believers in evolution have and they cling hard to it.
Anything they think denies the knowledge of God is fair game.

 

[DaGeo]

But that does not make it wrong. We are talking about biochemistry that evolved 4 billion years ago. How much evidence do you think has survived from then?

The point is that scientists have speculated, and have proposed workable ways in which cell membranes could have appeared. And that is enough to destroy the creationist claim that cell membranes cannot form naturalistically.

That’s a fantastic outlook based on old science fiction and bold assumptions. I guess the main person you must convince is yourself.

 

[DaGeo]

I apologise for coming across as hostile - and I appreciate that I am - but evolution is real science.

You don’t come across as if you are 100% convinced evolution is “real science”. It seems you want and need to believe in it but you behave as though someone might take it from you

It is accepted by over 99% of biologists because it is real science.

At one time a lot of people believed the earth was flat.

It makes predictions that are confirmed by observation and experiment, like the rest of science. Since Darwin proposed it over a century and a half ago, more and more evidence has come to light that confirms it is true.

Are you saying Darwin was the first to propose evolution?
You also claim evidence “confirms” what you believe about evolution but you don’t seem to realize the “evidence” must be interpreted by someone in order to come to that conclusion.
I think you’re confusing confirmation with confirmation bias.
Thus you confuse the interpretation of evidence with what is true

You are free to believe what you want, but let us be honest here, your belief is based on religious faith, and not on science or evidence.

You are free to believe in your own assumptions and the assumptions of those with whom you choose to agree but your faith in evolution is not science based. You’re not being honest with yourself if you think evolution is more than a religious doctrine

 

[The Pixie]

Thought you said “real science” but you show science fiction

Some people just have a good imagination, when they do, they create really great fiction

That’s a fantastic outlook based on old science fiction and bold assumptions. I guess the main person you must convince is yourself.

I see you made three comments, but somehow neglected to say anything!

Do you have any reason to suppose evolution is not true? I mean, besides faith, that is.

 

[The Pixie]

You don’t come across as if you are 100% convinced evolution is “real science”. It seems you want and need to believe in it but you behave as though someone might take it from you

I am not so arrogant as to think I can know for sure. How about you? Are you able to acknowledge you could be wrong?

It is accepted by over 99% of biologists because it is real science.

At one time a lot of people believed the earth was flat.

So what? Do you really think that that invalidates all the evidence for evolution?

The reason over 99% of biologists believe in evolution is because of the evidence. The point about them being biologists is that they have studied the subject to a degree way beyond you and me. They are the experts. They know the arguments, the evidence.

Are you saying Darwin was the first to propose evolution?

The first to propose Darwinian evolution.

You also claim evidence “confirms” what you believe about evolution but you don’t seem to realize the “evidence” must be interpreted by someone in order to come to that conclusion.
I think you’re confusing confirmation with confirmation bias.
Thus you confuse the interpretation of evidence with what is true

You seem to forget that over 99% of biologists believe in evolution because of the evidence. That is, the experts in this subject nearly all interpret the evidence to say evolution is true.

Do you want to discuss the evidence? Tell me how you interpret how the vitamin C pseudo gene is distributed across species. Tell me how you interpret the fact that chimp DNA is close to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.

You are free to believe in your own assumptions and the assumptions of those with whom you choose to agree but your faith in evolution is not science based.

What is your basis for that claim? Oh, right. Your religious beliefs....

You’re not being honest with yourself if you think evolution is more than a religious doctrine

This is just plain nonsense. Many of those 99% of biologists who accept evolution are Christians, and plenty come from other religions. They do not believe in evolution for ideological reasons, but because of the evidence.

 

[Cisco Qid]

You seem to forget that over 99% of biologists believe in evolution because of the evidence. That is, the experts in this subject nearly all interpret the evidence to say evolution is true.

To qualify this you need to define what you mean by evolution. There is the micro-evolution which just about everyone accepts and then there is the materialistic rocks to life evolution which fewer accept. Secularists have a habit adjusting the statistics to their advantage. Let's face it, random mutations and natural selection are both viable evolutionary forces as well as genetic drift which can be accounted for by information in the existing genome. But evolution's biggest challenge is the rocks to life and fish to mammal variety in which natural selection has been demonstrated as inadequate.

Do you want to discuss the evidence? Tell me how you interpret how the vitamin C pseudo gene is distributed across species. Tell me how you interpret the fact that chimp DNA is close to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.

I have no idea of how the C pseudo gene is distributed but it very likely fell into disuse by species that consume plants. You might also have a hard time explaining how vitamin C is produced en utero where the infants can sometimes be twice the concentration of the mother's. It appears that the GULO gene is active during this period.

But the chimp DNA is an after the fact determination after examining all three genomes.

 

[Temujin]

To qualify this you need to define what you mean by evolution. There is the micro-evolution which just about everyone accepts and then there is the materialistic rocks to life evolution which fewer accept.

This is dishonest.
What you are talking about here are two things packed into one. One is abiogenesis, "rocks to life", which is nothing to do with evolution. The second is simple life to complex life, "macroevolution" if you want to contrast it with macroevolution. And the fact is that the distinction is false. Everyone who accepts evolution, which is everyone who matters, accepts that the distinction between micro and macro is false. There is no mechanism which prevents evolution at the micro level progressing to speciation.

Secularists have a habit adjusting the statistics to their advantage. Let's face it, random mutations and natural selection are both viable evolutionary forces as well as genetic drift which can be accounted for by information in the existing genome. But evolution's biggest challenge is the rocks to life and fish to mammal variety in which natural selection has been demonstrated as inadequate.

Nope, this is not evolutions challenge. Any way that life starts, including some kind of Godly hand-waving, entails evolution thereafter. If you have life, you have evolution. If you don't have life, then you don't have evolution. Any more than you have window cleaners without windows.

I have no idea of how the C pseudo gene is distributed

then I suggest you study the problem, because everything you say from this point is ridiculous and meaningless in equal measure.

but it very likely fell into disuse by species that consume plants. You might also have a hard time explaining how vitamin C is produced en utero where the infants can sometimes be twice the concentration of the mother's. It appears that the GULO gene is active during this period.

But the chimp DNA is an after the fact determination after examining all three genomes.

See what I mean? Ridiculous and meaningless.

 

[Cisco Qid]

This is dishonest.
What you are talking about here are two things packed into one. One is abiogenesis, "rocks to life", which is nothing to do with evolution.

It has everything to do with evolution. Evolutionists like to claim that there no link between the two in order to avoid the subject. But without abiogenesis there is no evolution and therefore they are intimately related. Evolution is built on the framework of all ready existing life forms but can't explain how these life forms came into existence. Their solution is to simply to create a false dichotomy where their theory simply accepts the gift of life and builds from there. Unfortunately their false utopia is blotched with stains such as the Cambrian explosion, transitional fossils popping out of no where and no gradual continuity of the fossil record.

The second is simple life to complex life, "macroevolution" if you want to contrast it with macroevolution. And the fact is that the distinction is false. Everyone who accepts evolution, which is everyone who matters, accepts that the distinction between micro and macro is false. There is no mechanism which prevents evolution at the micro level progressing to speciation. Nope, this is not evolutions challenge. Any way that life starts, including some kind of Godly hand-waving, entails evolution thereafter. If you have life, you have evolution. If you don't have life, then you don't have evolution. Any more than you have window cleaners without windows.

What you have done is taken micro-evolution for which there is evidence and extrapolated it to fit macro-evolution for which their is no evidence just as there is no evidence for naturalistic materialism. When you break down living organisms down into their informational units as in DNA, you find from information theory that random processes are capable of small quantities of information but it is incapable of producing large enough quantities of information (500 bits or more) with in the confines of the universe. And even with natural selection acting as a filter, it has not been able to produce anything en novo even with computer simulations speeding up the time needed to achieve such novelty starting with existing life.

then I suggest you study the problem, because everything you say from this point is ridiculous and meaningless in equal measure. See what I mean? Ridiculous and meaningless.

The typical secular reply.

 

[Gus Bovona]

It has everything to do with evolution. Evolutionists like to claim that there no link between the two in order to avoid the subject. But without abiogenesis there is no evolution and therefore they are intimately related. Evolution is built on the framework of all ready existing life forms but can't explain how these life forms came into existence. Their solution is to simply to create a false dichotomy where their theory simply accepts the gift of life and builds from there. Unfortunately their false utopia is blotched with stains such as the Cambrian explosion, transitional fossils popping out of no where and no gradual continuity of the fossil record.

What you have done is taken micro-evolution for which there is evidence and extrapolated it to fit macro-evolution for which their is no evidence just as there is no evidence for naturalistic materialism. When you break down living organisms down into their informational units as in DNA, you find from information theory that random processes are capable of small quantities of information but it is incapable of producing large enough quantities of information (500 bits or more) with in the confines of the universe. And even with natural selection acting as a filter, it has not been able to produce anything en novo even with computer simulations speeding up the time needed to achieve such novelty starting with existing life.

The typical secular reply.

Cisco, where, in your opinion, is line between micro and macro evolution? That is, how big of a change would it have to be in order to be macro evolution? Or do you define micro-evolution to be changes we have observed in real-time, and macro-evolution to be the extrapolation to changes beyond those observed in real time?

 

[Cisco Qid]

Cisco, where, in your opinion, is line between micro and macro evolution? That is, how big of a change would it have to be in order to be macro evolution? Or do you define micro-evolution to be changes we have observed in real-time, and macro-evolution to be the extrapolation to changes beyond those observed in real time?

The line between micro and macro has already been drawn at 500 bits of information by the Discovery Institute which corresponds to a word essay of 107 characters or 250 DNA base pairs which is 83 and one third codons. This number is derived from the estimated age of the universe in seconds, Plank's constant (which is the number of events that can occur in one second) and the number of particles in the universe*.

Obviously you can't observe macro-evolution in real time but you can with micro which is the reason for the extrapolation.

* The number is 10^150 which corresponds to log2(10^150) = 498.29 bits of information which is then rounded up to 500.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The line between micro and macro has already been drawn at 500 bits of information by the Discovery Institute which corresponds to a word essay of 107 characters or 250 DNA base pairs which is 83 and one third codons. This number is derived from the estimated age of the universe in seconds, Plank's constant (which is the number of events that can occur in one second) and the number of particles in the universe*.

Obviously you can't observe macro-evolution in real time but you can with micro which is the reason for the extrapolation.

* The number is 10^150 which corresponds to log2(10^150) = 498.29 bits of information which is then rounded up to 500.

Do you have a link or a source that explains the connection between information, those numbers, and evolution? That is, the whole picture? I can imagine one, but I want to work with what the people who are making the macro/micro distinction see as the connections.

 

[Temujin]

It has everything to do with evolution. Evolutionists like to claim that there no link between the two in order to avoid the subject. But without abiogenesis there is no evolution and therefore they are intimately related.

A totally ridiculous argument. Without gravity there is no ballet. We have no complete explanation of gravity. Does this make ballet impossible?

Evolution is built on the framework of all ready existing life forms but can't explain how these life forms came into existence.

Nor does it seek to do so, since how life came to be doesn't affect how evolution operates, since as you point out, evolution works on already existing life forms. Building a bridge uses already existing building materials. The architects plans don't have to show where the iron ore for the girders is to be mined.

Their solution is to simply to create a false dichotomy where their theory simply accepts the gift of life and builds from there.

Yep, except, as has been shown, the dichotomy is not false.

Unfortunately their false utopia is blotched with stains such as the Cambrian explosion, transitional fossils popping out of no where and no gradual continuity of the fossil record.

Methinks you misunderstand what the Cambrian explosion was. It isn't a sudden emergence of life forms, but a sudden increase in the number of fossilised forms. Caused by the development of hard body parts which fossilised more easily. Fossils pre-date the Cambrian by some distance.

What you have done is taken micro-evolution for which there is evidence and extrapolated it to fit macro-evolution for which their is no evidence just as there is no evidence for naturalistic materialism.

This is simply untrue.

When you break down living organisms down into their informational units as in DNA, you find from information theory that random processes are capable of small quantities of information but it is incapable of producing large enough quantities of information (500 bits or more) with in the confines of the universe. And even with natural selection acting as a filter, it has not been able to produce anything en novo even with computer simulations speeding up the time needed to achieve such novelty starting with existing life.

This too, is simply untrue. The distinction between macro evolution which a few cannot accept for doctrinal reasons, and microevolution, which they are forced to accept since it has been documented and observed, is entirely artificial.

 

[The Pixie]

To qualify this you need to define what you mean by evolution. There is the micro-evolution which just about everyone accepts and then there is the materialistic rocks to life evolution which fewer accept. Secularists have a habit adjusting the statistics to their advantage. Let's face it, random mutations and natural selection are both viable evolutionary forces as well as genetic drift which can be accounted for by information in the existing genome.

I mean the modern version of Darwinian evolution, including common descent. Over 99% of biologist accept mainstream evolution.

But evolution's biggest challenge is the rocks to life and fish to mammal variety in which natural selection has been demonstrated as inadequate.

Where has that been demonstrated? Certainly not be creationists, who routinely ignore natural selection in their models!

I have no idea of how the C pseudo gene is distributed but it very likely fell into disuse by species that consume plants. You might also have a hard time explaining how vitamin C is produced en utero where the infants can sometimes be twice the concentration of the mother's. It appears that the GULO gene is active during this period.

Right. It fell into disuse by an early primate. All descendant species then had a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis - and all broken inthe same way. Some other clades also have a broken gene, but broken in a different way.

All strong evidence for common descent and macroevolution. Meanwhile ID has "I have no idea"...

But the chimp DNA is an after the fact determination after examining all three genomes.

All three genomes were examine, and they found chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. So far so good.

The issue then is how each theory explains that. Evolution say it is because chimps have a more recent common ancestor with humans than with gorillas. What has ID got? Same as with the vitamin C pseudogene?

 

[Temujin]

I mean the modern version of Darwinian evolution, including common descent. Over 99% of biologist accept mainstream evolution.


Where has that been demonstrated? Certainly not be creationists, who routinely ignore natural selection in their models!


Right. It fell into disuse by an early primate. All descendant species then had a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis - and all broken inthe same way. Some other clades also have a broken gene, but broken in a different way.

All strong evidence for common descent and macroevolution. Meanwhile ID has "I have no idea"...


All three genomes were examine, and they found chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. So far so good.

The issue then is how each theory explains that. Evolution say it is because chimps have a more recent common ancestor with humans than with gorillas. What has ID got? Same as with the vitamin C pseudogene?

The no-eyed deer is the only organism that ID has been able to create.

 

[rossum]

Anything they think denies the knowledge of God is fair game.

Evolution does not deny knowledge of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Intelligent Design does.

An omnipotent, omniscient God can set up the laws of the universe and the initial state of the universe so that exactly the desired outcome will happen at some time in the future, and value of "time in the future" being 0% of the lifetime of God.

Intelligent Design denies an omnipotent omniscient God, instead insisting that a Designer has to intervene at some points in time to ensure that the correct outcome happens. That is like a pool player having to redirect the cue ball after he has taken his shot.

Intelligent Design either denies that God is omnipotent or that God is omniscient, or both.