View Full Version : A scientific theory
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search2.html?bo1=AND&word=&search_type=normal&def=theory scroll down to #17
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Theory
http://staff.jccc.net/PDECELL/bio122/words/tdefs.html scroll down...alphabetical
http://www.fsteiger.com/cartoon2.gif
Is Evolution only a theory?
Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
Vegas
03-26-2007, 06:14 PM
That's a very arrogant assertion about creationists when creationists win debates regularly.
Funny, a lot of this stuff also holds true for the global warming debate.
That's a very arrogant assertion about creationists when creationists win debates regularly.
Win a debate? I think that's quite arrogant in itself. Isn't that in the eye (or ear) of the beholder?
Vegas
03-26-2007, 06:19 PM
Win a debate? I think that's quite arrogant in itself. Isn't that in the eye (or ear) of the beholder?
Yes. They have held these debates for quite a few years including at secular universities and the audience almost always agrees that the creation side is the stronger scientific side.
Reagan Smash
03-26-2007, 06:26 PM
I hate Science.
Yes. They have held these debates for quite a few years including at secular universities and the audience almost always agrees that the creation side is the stronger scientific side.
"quite a few years"
"almost always agrees"
Getting vague again.
What level of biological teaching have these audiences had? That is, what is their understanding if evolutionary theory. It's not something you can hear about in an hour and have a vast understanding of...
Who's polling the audience after these debates? Who's in the debates?
hell, I bet you and I would differ almost regularly about who wins in debates. That doesn't mean the side that "we" think won is actually right.
Also, who goes to these debates? People that want to see evolution brought down or those that already have a good understanding of it and see the theory as holding ground?
I know a lot of people visited a seminar some geologist gave on campus. LSU itself is not a religious U, but a lot of the people there were religious, so who's side do you think they'll come out on, regardless of what points are made?
I'll need some numbers and some backgrounds before I think about accepting this as a valid argument against the theory. Sorry.
I hate Science.
So does Vegas.
*it's a joke! it's a joke!*
Roy Munson
03-26-2007, 09:48 PM
I'm a descendant from apes, damnit.
ryr8828
03-26-2007, 10:23 PM
I'm a descendant from apes, damnit.
Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
Cornelius
I'm a descendant from apes, damnit.
Incorrect.
You and apes have a common ancestor.
This is one of those misconceptions the anti-evolutionists like to throw out there to make the theory sound outrageous in some minds.
Sadly, it's probably also the way some HS teachers teach it.
Incorrect.
You and apes have a common ancestor.
This is one of those misconceptions the anti-evolutionists like to throw out there to make the theory sound outrageous in some minds.
Sadly, it's probably also the way some HS teachers teach it.
You mean we have moved forward since the Scopes monkey trial?
Nixon's Head
03-28-2007, 12:07 PM
Speaking of creationism. I've been reading 'The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.' The dude totally rips evolution. Definitely not what I was expecting when I started reading it. I will admit some of the theories presented in the book, so far, are rather comical.
MTVike
03-28-2007, 02:08 PM
Speaking of creationism. I've been reading 'The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.' The dude totally rips evolution. Definitely not what I was expecting when I started reading it. I will admit some of the theories presented in the book, so far, are rather comical.
Huh. I thought it was written in protest to some schools insisting on teaching creationism as another theory on the beginning of the world.
Kind of a satirical tale about suggesting another "theory" about where we came from.
More anti-Christian in theme. Guess I had the wrong take.
Here's my take on teaching creationism.
In a biology class, all biology is based in principal on the theory of evolution. Also, as it is right now, there is not enough time to cover most biological topics, so everything is covered in haste. Throw in teaching creationism to that and you have even more haste on topics that aren't so controversial, such as photosynthesis, respiration, blood flow, etc.
If you're going to teach biology, teach biology as biology is. Based on evolution. If you want to have a debate, have it in a separate class. But in biology, teach what biology practices.
I have no problem if people want a debate, but don't take away from kids learning the rest of the stuff.
Just a thought.
Vegas
03-28-2007, 02:32 PM
Here's my take on teaching creationism.
In a biology class, all biology is based in principal on the theory of evolution. Also, as it is right now, there is not enough time to cover most biological topics, so everything is covered in haste. Throw in teaching creationism to that and you have even more haste on topics that aren't so controversial, such as photosynthesis, respiration, blood flow, etc.
If you're going to teach biology, teach biology as biology is. Based on evolution. If you want to have a debate, have it in a separate class. But in biology, teach what biology practices.
I have no problem if people want a debate, but don't take away from kids learning the rest of the stuff.
Just a thought.
Would you have a problem with teaching the evidences for creation? Looking at the complexities which can be scientifically interpreted as design, for instance.
MTVike
03-28-2007, 02:35 PM
Here's my take on teaching creationism.
In a biology class, all biology is based in principal on the theory of evolution. Also, as it is right now, there is not enough time to cover most biological topics, so everything is covered in haste. Throw in teaching creationism to that and you have even more haste on topics that aren't so controversial, such as photosynthesis, respiration, blood flow, etc.
If you're going to teach biology, teach biology as biology is. Based on evolution. If you want to have a debate, have it in a separate class. But in biology, teach what biology practices.
I have no problem if people want a debate, but don't take away from kids learning the rest of the stuff.
Just a thought.
High school biology teacher: You will not know the names of all the amino acids when you leave this class...You SHALL know the names of the amino acids when you leave this class.
Unfortunately that quote, and his gum chewing-blackplastic frame glasses face, is all I remember from his class.
Would you have a problem with teaching the evidences for creation? Looking at the complexities which can be scientifically interpreted as design, for instance.
In biology, yes, I would have a problem with that. "Complexity" is not a legitimate gripe, IMO. Just because we cannot wrap our heads around it, does not mean that it's not occurring. There are a lot of things we cannot and maybe will not understand. The "too complex" to me is the same as "it's too hard."
I don't buy it one bit.
And, in my opinion, while it's complex, it's not complex. A nerve is complex, but when you look at it, it's just a chemical reaction. Sodium and potassium.
200 years ago, lots of things we know now were "too" complex. Knowledge advances. You get stuck in a rut of saying "that's not possible" the longer you'll go without searching for the answers.
High school biology teacher: You will not know the names of all the amino acids when you leave this class...You SHALL know the names of the amino acids when you leave this class.
Unfortunately that quote, and his gum chewing-blackplastic frame glasses face, is all I remember from his class.
Lazy biology teacher. Anyone can memorize amino acids and their abbreviations. Very few learn them.
Anyone can look up what the amino acids are on the internet.
Teach them what they do and how they're beneficial. That's what people need to know.
Memorization blows. It's for lazy teachers.
Vegas
03-28-2007, 02:40 PM
In biology, yes, I would have a problem with that. "Complexity" is not a legitimate gripe, IMO. Just because we cannot wrap our heads around it, does not mean that it's not occurring. There are a lot of things we cannot and maybe will not understand. The "too complex" to me is the same as "it's too hard."
I don't buy it one bit.
And, in my opinion, while it's complex, it's not complex. A nerve is complex, but when you look at it, it's just a chemical reaction. Sodium and potassium.
200 years ago, lots of things we know now were "too" complex. Knowledge advances. You get stuck in a rut of saying "that's not possible" the longer you'll go without searching for the answers.
OK, maybe "complexity" is not the right word. How about "highly ordered" and how that points to design?
Nixon's Head
03-28-2007, 02:40 PM
Huh. I thought it was written in protest to some schools insisting on teaching creationism as another theory on the beginning of the world.
Kind of a satirical tale about suggesting another "theory" about where we came from.
More anti-Christian in theme. Guess I had the wrong take.You are correct on the another theory part, but it seems that there is also a lot of pro-ID statements made...so far.
BoredWithNoSB
03-28-2007, 02:43 PM
topics that aren't so controversial, such as photosynthesis
Don't get me started on photosynthesis. God makes the flowers grow, not chemical reactions. Bunch of voodoo scientists out there telling me God doesn't make flowers grow. Hah!
OK, maybe "complexity" is not the right word. How about "highly ordered" and how that points to design?
Nope. Might as well have said "complex". What's order, besides a human designation.
Ordered, to me, is the same as "complex".
What appears to "us" to be ordered may actually not be all that ordered at all.
MTVike
03-28-2007, 03:25 PM
Lazy biology teacher. Anyone can memorize amino acids and their abbreviations. Very few learn them.
Anyone can look up what the amino acids are on the internet.
Teach them what they do and how they're beneficial. That's what people need to know.
Memorization blows. It's for lazy teachers.
Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins? (that's really all I got)
He wasn't lazy, I was just probably more interested in Peggy Sue's cleavage than weird drawings on the board.
The point being that this a difficult area for nonscientists. I'm not going to point at you and say "He thinks my uncle was a monkey" but some people will because they don't know much about science and feel defensive when you tell them the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.
I don't believe in the literal Old Testament version of creation, but neither do I believe that we all arrived here by some haphazard process.
Like you indicated, we certainly know less about the world/universe than we ultimately will know about it through science.
At the same time, I believe some things are unknowable in this life.
Jiddy78
03-28-2007, 03:38 PM
Is Evolution only a theory?
Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
Hmmm...
Jiddy78
03-28-2007, 03:39 PM
Don't get me started on photosynthesis. God makes the flowers grow, not chemical reactions. Bunch of voodoo scientists out there telling me God doesn't make flowers grow. Hah!
Chlorophyll?!?
More like....Borophyll...
Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins? (that's really all I got)
He wasn't lazy, I was just probably more interested in Peggy Sue's cleavage than weird drawings on the board.
The point being that this a difficult area for nonscientists. I'm not going to point at you and say "He thinks my uncle was a monkey" but some people will because they don't know much about science and feel defensive when you tell them the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.
I don't believe in the literal Old Testament version of creation, but neither do I believe that we all arrived here by some haphazard process.
Like you indicated, we certainly know less about the world/universe than we ultimately will know about it through science.
At the same time, I believe some things are unknowable in this life.
Yes, amino acids make up proteins. Very good.
And I agree about nonscientists having a hard time in science classes. Just like I had a hard time in psych and a few other classes, but I still had to take them, and I didn't try to change them to suit my preconceived notion of the subject.
But what you're saying is that people are afraid to learn that what they've been taught in a nonscientific manner is not supported by scientific thought. A refusal to learn or believe. They know what the general thinking is, but refuse it.
If that's how you want to think, be my guest, I won't try to change you. But realize that knowledge, or lack thereof, will get you very little in a biological setting. So, don't plan on being a biologist.
And don't try to change biology to suit what you think it should be, particularly if you have little to know in depth understanding of it.
Some biologists, I imagine, are very good at what they do and still have problems with evolution. And that, I do not mind. Thinking there are better answers to evolution is fine. There may be. So far, there are a few missing pieces. Maybe we'll find them, maybe we won't. Evolution was described in the 1800s and has largely stayed the same basic principle, common ancestry. It has been tweaked here and there, but the main concept has not been disproven, at least in the eyes of most of the scientists. Vegas has and will propose ideas that he claims that absolutely deny the plausibility of evolution. If it were that absolute, we wouldn't be talking about evolution right now.
It's the best explanation we have, scientifically speaking.
Just like global warming, many people will step up and point at a particular point that is weak in their eyes...and it might truly be a weak point. But you don't bring down a house by pulling out one nail. Evolution wasn't well received in the 1800s, but it's stood the test of time in biological terms since then, so there's a lot more science supporting it than some will give it credit.
Jiddy78
03-28-2007, 03:52 PM
???
Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."
As used in science, a theory is
I'll just go right to the creationists for their definition of "theory":
A theory is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena. A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing a related set of natural or social behaviors or observations. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do experiments that counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community.[Citation Needed] Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories.[Citation Needed] Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as String Theory. However some scientists want the name of the idea String Theory to be changed as it does not fit with the scientific meaning of the word. [4]
The Theory of Evolution includes microevolution (change in allele frequency over time), which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all life on Earth, which remains controversial.[Citation Needed]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory
Is there any difference?
Jiddy78
03-28-2007, 03:52 PM
Oh, by the way, yes, that is the right wing solution to the devil that is Wikipedia.
Jiddy78
03-28-2007, 03:53 PM
Oh, by the way, yes, that is the right wing solution to the devil that is Wikipedia.
Welcome to Conservapedia
A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.
Conservapedia has over 5,900 educational, clean, and concise entries, including more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 4,700,000 page views and over 67,700 page edits. This site is growing rapidly.
Today's featured entry: Joseph Stalin is #99 among our most-viewed entries. Exposing his evil is a collective effort here.
Bible Quote of the Day: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The First Commandment, Exodus, 20:3
Historical Quote of the Day: "Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Query xviii: Manners.
:p :p :p
Vegas
03-28-2007, 03:54 PM
Nope. Might as well have said "complex". What's order, besides a human designation.
Ordered, to me, is the same as "complex".
What appears to "us" to be ordered may actually not be all that ordered at all.
Every living organism is incredibly complex, with well-designed, interdependent parts. Every living thing is governed and energized by the ordering mechanism of the DNA molecule, consisting of myriads of genes and proteins, subcomponents of incredible precision, each doing its job and each depending on the other to do its job. Evolutionists say it all happened in a step-by-step sequence by a totally random process. Creationists say it was designed.
A random mutation that produces a new and better gene has never been observed. Creation teaches that there shouldn't be, evolutionists assure us there have been billions and billions, and they're still looking for an example.
What's wrong with including this type of information?
I'll just go right to the creationists for their definition of "theory":
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory
Is there any difference?
between a scientific theory and the theory given by the creationists?
Yes, I would say so. This part in particular.
"A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community."
I would venture that most scientists would disagree. An idea that doesn't have strong experimental support or is not generally accepted by the community is closer to a hypothesis than a theory.
Vegas
03-28-2007, 03:59 PM
Yes, amino acids make up proteins. Very good.
And I agree about nonscientists having a hard time in science classes. Just like I had a hard time in psych and a few other classes, but I still had to take them, and I didn't try to change them to suit my preconceived notion of the subject.
But what you're saying is that people are afraid to learn that what they've been taught in a nonscientific manner is not supported by scientific thought. A refusal to learn or believe. They know what the general thinking is, but refuse it.
If that's how you want to think, be my guest, I won't try to change you. But realize that knowledge, or lack thereof, will get you very little in a biological setting. So, don't plan on being a biologist.
And don't try to change biology to suit what you think it should be, particularly if you have little to know in depth understanding of it.
Some biologists, I imagine, are very good at what they do and still have problems with evolution. And that, I do not mind. Thinking there are better answers to evolution is fine. There may be. So far, there are a few missing pieces. Maybe we'll find them, maybe we won't. Evolution was described in the 1800s and has largely stayed the same basic principle, common ancestry. It has been tweaked here and there, but the main concept has not been disproven, at least in the eyes of most of the scientists. Vegas has and will propose ideas that he claims that absolutely deny the plausibility of evolution. If it were that absolute, we wouldn't be talking about evolution right now.
It's the best explanation we have, scientifically speaking.
Just like global warming, many people will step up and point at a particular point that is weak in their eyes...and it might truly be a weak point. But you don't bring down a house by pulling out one nail. Evolution wasn't well received in the 1800s, but it's stood the test of time in biological terms since then, so there's a lot more science supporting it than some will give it credit.
Darwin wrote his book in 1859. He laid out a quite compelling map showing common ancestry. He said that all that needed to happen to prove it was to find the transitional fossils. It's not a small problem that in the last 148 years with the billions of fossils that have been discovered that not a single transitional form has been found.
And there's another large problem with the Darwin theory. He never did come up with the real origin. Life only comes from life. Darwin did not address this and nobody has come up with a satisfactory answer.
Jiddy78
03-28-2007, 04:01 PM
between a scientific theory and the theory given by the creationists?
Yes, I would say so. This part in particular.
"A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community."
I would venture that most scientists would disagree. An idea that doesn't have strong experimental support or is not generally accepted by the community is closer to a hypothesis than a theory.
Then I consider your ??? answered.
Every living organism is incredibly complex, with well-designed, interdependent parts. Every living thing is governed and energized by the ordering mechanism of the DNA molecule, consisting of myriads of genes and proteins, subcomponents of incredible precision, each doing its job and each depending on the other to do its job. Evolutionists say it all happened in a step-by-step sequence by a totally random process. Creationists say it was designed.
A random mutation that produces a new and better gene has never been observed. Creation teaches that there shouldn't be, evolutionists assure us there have been billions and billions, and they're still looking for an example.
What's wrong with including this type of information?
It's completely loaded.
You say random mutations don't occur that produce a new and better gene.
Yet, in some articles you posted at sports-boards awhile back to show that mutations affect protein synthesis, therein was a mutation that led to a better gene. It was a mutation in RNA polymerase that made it so streptomycin had no effect on the bacterium. Isn't that an improved protein?
Now, I'm sure you'll point to the fact that those bacterium had slower growth, so it's really not an advantage. What's better, dying or surviving?
I'm sure scientists put forth many examples (perhaps like the one I just did), but it's all up to the creationist to accept it. And if they've been trained to deny everything an evolutionist says as proof of evolution, there's not going to be much accepting going on.
Also, I provided evidence of bacteria acquiring antibiotic resistance genes (genes that produce a protein that degrade an antibiotic, rendering it ineffective). Is that not an advantageous mutation?
But the whole loaded part is throwing in "observed." You can't see DNA. But what you can do, for instance is plate bacteria that have no antibiotic resistance on media that contains antibiotics. Most will die. Some will grow. It's a spontaneous advantageous mutation. It happens quite often.
In Africa, there's a subset of people that are resistant (not immune, but resistant) to a particular strain of HIV. As you might know, eukaryotes (humans) have two copies of every gene (prokaryotes - bacteria have one). The two copies makes the genome a bit more stable as opposed to bacteria. Anyway, a particular chemokine (I think it's cxc5 or something like that) is either homozygous present (2 copies), heterozygous (1 copy), or homozygous absent (both copies missing). Cxc5 (or whatever the gene is) produces a protein HIV uses to enter a cell. So guess what. The homozygous present people are susceptible and the homozygous absent people are largely resistant. And you guessed it, the heterozygous people are in the middle.
There's a mutation (in this case a deletion mutant) that is beneficial if you're in an area in which this HIV strain resides.
Beneficial to say the least.
Darwin wrote his book in 1859. He laid out a quite compelling map showing common ancestry. He said that all that needed to happen to prove it was to find the transitional fossils. It's not a small problem that in the last 148 years with the billions of fossils that have been discovered that not a single transitional form has been found.
And there's another large problem with the Darwin theory. He never did come up with the real origin. Life only comes from life. Darwin did not address this and nobody has come up with a satisfactory answer.
Oh well, might as well stop then.
I suppose "transitional" is in the eye of the beholder. I would suspect many antropologists would disagree with your assertion that no transitional forms have been found. I am not one, sadly, so...
Life only comes from life?
Life is chemicals. DNA, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, RNA. All carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. Maybe some sulfur here and there. Through in some sodium, potassium, and chloride, and you've got the tools needed for basic forms of life.
There was an experiment done by a fella named Miller, I believe, a long time ago where he put basic molecules together and subjected them to what was considered at the time to be primordial conditions, particular heat (energy) and atmosphere conditions. Lo and behold, he got some biochemical reactions that took place...
Now, creationists have jumped all over this, mainly because the "primordial" conditions he had used either are not or are not thought to be accurate to what it was billions of years ago, so they claim bullshit.
But wait. All that shows is that potentially, the conditions that he used aren't valid...but it does show that under certain conditions, these molecules can bombard each other and form RNA, lipids, etc.
Also, you can get spontaneous formations of lipid bilayers, which are what cell membranes are.
RNA by itself can be enzymatic, so there's how you get enzymatic activity for early "life" or at least biochemical action.
But, no one has a time machine to "observe" this with their own eyes, so...
Vegas
03-28-2007, 04:27 PM
Oh well, might as well stop then.
I suppose "transitional" is in the eye of the beholder. I would suspect many antropologists would disagree with your assertion that no transitional forms have been found. I am not one, sadly, so...
Life only comes from life?
Life is chemicals. DNA, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, RNA. All carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. Maybe some sulfur here and there. Through in some sodium, potassium, and chloride, and you've got the tools needed for basic forms of life.
There was an experiment done by a fella named Miller, I believe, a long time ago where he put basic molecules together and subjected them to what was considered at the time to be primordial conditions, particular heat (energy) and atmosphere conditions. Lo and behold, he got some biochemical reactions that took place...
Now, creationists have jumped all over this, mainly because the "primordial" conditions he had used either are not or are not thought to be accurate to what it was billions of years ago, so they claim bullshit.
But wait. All that shows is that potentially, the conditions that he used aren't valid...but it does show that under certain conditions, these molecules can bombard each other and form RNA, lipids, etc.
Also, you can get spontaneous formations of lipid bilayers, which are what cell membranes are.
RNA by itself can be enzymatic, so there's how you get enzymatic activity for early "life" or at least biochemical action.
But, no one has a time machine to "observe" this with their own eyes, so...
A dead body has every single chemical needed for life, but there is no life. Just having the chemicals is not enough.
And the Miller experiment produced amino acids, but the ordering and chirality issue wasn't addressed at all.
A dead body has every single chemical needed for life, but there is no life. Just having the chemicals is not enough.
And the Miller experiment produced amino acids, but the ordering and chirality issue wasn't addressed at all.
Dirt has ever single chemical needed for life.
A virus has everything needed for life. And can replicate.
The thing about a dead body is...(drum roll please)
It has no means to acquire the energy needed to live.
And entropy takes over.
Vegas
03-28-2007, 04:40 PM
Dirt has ever single chemical needed for life.
A virus has everything needed for life. And can replicate.
The thing about a dead body is...(drum roll please)
It has no means to acquire the energy needed to live.
And entropy takes over.
So dirt also has no means to acquire the energy needed to live and entropy takes over. And you just proved my point.
A dead body has every single chemical needed for life, but there is no life. Just having the chemicals is not enough.
And the Miller experiment produced amino acids, but the ordering and chirality issue wasn't addressed at all.
In regards to Miller, the order of amino acids will be random without a an mRNA sequence, i.e., codons.
But still shows that in certain conditions, little things become bigger things.
So dirt also has no means to acquire the energy needed to live and entropy takes over. And you just proved my point.
WHAT?
Where do you get that from?
You're right, dirt and a dead body have everything they need to live, except the ability to acquire energy. How does that prove your point?
If anything, it proves my point how evolution can follow the 2nd law assuming the organism has the means of energy acquisition.
In the "primordial" ooze, the energy is in the heat, and that can be replicated in the lab as well. Put an enzyme at 4 celsius, no action. Put it at 37 celsius, and there's action. In the presence of ATP, of course...is also a chemical.
Vegas
03-28-2007, 04:46 PM
WHAT?
Where do you get that from?
You're right, dirt and a dead body have everything they need to live, except the ability to acquire energy. How does that prove your point?
If anything, it proves my point how evolution can follow the 2nd law assuming the organism has the means of energy acquisition.
In the "primordial" ooze, the energy is in the heat, and that can be replicated in the lab as well. Put an enzyme at 4 celsius, no action. Put it at 37 celsius, and there's action. In the presence of ATP, of course...is also a chemical.
Because if you leave all of the chemicals to themselves, they don't order themselves into a highly complex living system.
Because if you leave all of the chemicals to themselves, they don't order themselves into a highly complex living system.
I will agree that humans didn't rise from the primordial ooze. And that's a part of no theory in biology.
Also, that's loaded, too. If you leave them all to themselves...where?
In a freezer?
In a sheet of ice where there's no heat (energy)?
In the tundra?
On a rock?
In a environment deep in the ocean beds where geothermal vents occur, where there are enormous amounts of heat (energy) that would allow molecules to run into each other and form bonds? Or in a pool of organic slop that's constantly being heated to a nice temperature that facilitates the binding of molecules?
But you're right that no one has thrown something in a hot oven and some liquid and made a human. You got me there.
Vegas
03-28-2007, 04:52 PM
I will agree that humans didn't rise from the primordial ooze. And that's a part of no theory in biology.
Also, that's loaded, too. If you leave them all to themselves...where?
In a freezer?
In a sheet of ice where there's no heat (energy)?
In the tundra?
On a rock?
In a environment deep in the ocean beds where geothermal vents occur, where there are enormous amounts of heat (energy) that would allow molecules to run into each other and form bonds? Or in a pool of organic slop that's constantly being heated to a nice temperature that facilitates the binding of molecules?
But you're right that no one has thrown something in a hot oven and some liquid and made a human. You got me there.
So let's look at it more basic. Has anyone in any conditions ever been able to take all of the elements necessary for life and produce life?
So let's look at it more basic. Has anyone in any conditions ever been able to take all of the elements necessary for life and produce life?
Nope.
BoredWithNoSB
03-28-2007, 04:56 PM
Nope.
So, by logical extention if nobody has done it yet, it can't be done :rolleyes:
Vegas
03-28-2007, 04:59 PM
So, by logical extention if nobody has done it yet, it can't be done :rolleyes:
I never said that. The point is that the ordering required to make the most basic life cells can be interpreted as design. There are many qualified biologists who see it that way and there's no reason not to teach that side in schools.
I never said that. The point is that the ordering required to make the most basic life cells can be interpreted as design. There are many qualified biologists who see it that way and there's no reason not to teach that side in schools.
There have been a select few biologists (including at one time, Kary Mullis, inventor of the best thing ever invented for molecular biology...PCR...won a Nobel prize for it) that question whether or not HIV actually causes AIDS. Should we also teach that in high school? Should we take everything that has some people that question it and put it in high school cirricula?
How much time do you plan on having kids in biology class?
Or would you prefer to teach the most widely accepted ideas in such a low level class and have those that want to contend it further their thoughts in college where they can focus on one particular subject?
I never said that. The point is that the ordering required to make the most basic life cells can be interpreted as design. There are many qualified biologists who see it that way and there's no reason not to teach that side in schools.
Doesn't that just teach lazy thinking? I.e., if you don't have an answer to it right here, right now, attribute to a higher being and move onto something else?
That's the antithesis of science.
Vegas
03-28-2007, 05:07 PM
There have been a select few biologists (including at one time, Kary Mullis, inventor of the best thing ever invented for molecular biology...PCR) that question whether or not HIV actually causes AIDS. Should we also teach that in high school? Should we take everything that has some people that question it and put it in high school cirricula?
How much time do you plan on having kids in biology class?
Or would you prefer to teach the most widely accepted ideas in such a low level class and have those that want to contend it further their thoughts in college where they can focus on one particular subject?
I think both evolution and creation should be taught. And I'm only talking about teaching the evidence for design side of creation, not any religious account.
It's pretty difficult to say how much time on any subject. There isn't enough science (life or physical) and math taught in schools these days.
I think both evolution and creation should be taught. And I'm only talking about teaching the evidence for design side of creation, not any religious account.
It's pretty difficult to say how much time on any subject. There isn't enough science (life or physical) and math taught in schools these days.
I will agree fully with the second part.
As you can probably tell, I will disagree fully with the first part...at least in context of biology class. Now, if a school system wanted to provide an elective to discuss the differences...that's their business, and so long as the have someone schooled in the PROPER way in regards to both sides, so be it.
But all that would end up being is the kids watching a discussion like this. Just disagreeing back and forth.
There's no way you can have one person teach both sides, be impartial to both, or get an accurate account of each side.
Reagan Smash
03-28-2007, 05:14 PM
Listen, I've been to public school. They don't teach anything.
It's completely loaded.
You say random mutations don't occur that produce a new and better gene.
Yet, in some articles you posted at sports-boards awhile back to show that mutations affect protein synthesis, therein was a mutation that led to a better gene. It was a mutation in RNA polymerase that made it so streptomycin had no effect on the bacterium. Isn't that an improved protein?
Now, I'm sure you'll point to the fact that those bacterium had slower growth, so it's really not an advantage. What's better, dying or surviving?
I'm sure scientists put forth many examples (perhaps like the one I just did), but it's all up to the creationist to accept it. And if they've been trained to deny everything an evolutionist says as proof of evolution, there's not going to be much accepting going on.
Also, I provided evidence of bacteria acquiring antibiotic resistance genes (genes that produce a protein that degrade an antibiotic, rendering it ineffective). Is that not an advantageous mutation?
But the whole loaded part is throwing in "observed." You can't see DNA. But what you can do, for instance is plate bacteria that have no antibiotic resistance on media that contains antibiotics. Most will die. Some will grow. It's a spontaneous advantageous mutation. It happens quite often.
In Africa, there's a subset of people that are resistant (not immune, but resistant) to a particular strain of HIV. As you might know, eukaryotes (humans) have two copies of every gene (prokaryotes - bacteria have one). The two copies makes the genome a bit more stable as opposed to bacteria. Anyway, a particular chemokine (I think it's cxc5 or something like that) is either homozygous present (2 copies), heterozygous (1 copy), or homozygous absent (both copies missing). Cxc5 (or whatever the gene is) produces a protein HIV uses to enter a cell. So guess what. The homozygous present people are susceptible and the homozygous absent people are largely resistant. And you guessed it, the heterozygous people are in the middle.
There's a mutation (in this case a deletion mutant) that is beneficial if you're in an area in which this HIV strain resides.
Beneficial to say the least.
A random mutation that produces a new and better gene has never been observed. Creation teaches that there shouldn't be, evolutionists assure us there have been billions and billions, and they're still looking for an example.
So...
???
swordfish
03-28-2007, 05:27 PM
Dirt has ever single chemical needed for life.
A virus has everything needed for life. And can replicate.
The thing about a dead body is...(drum roll please)
It has no means to acquire the energy needed to live.
And entropy takes over.
Excuse me I just joined this discussion and I am far behind. The second Law of Thermodynamics...Entropy? Has anyone in here read this Law? Remember the speeches about hypothesis, theories, and LAWS. In this post you say that chemicals in a dead body have no means of acquiring energy and that entropy takes over. Then you want us to believe that random chemicals millions of years ago combined to form not only a system to acquire energy but also a system to replicate.
Please do not come at this argument half-assed. I have plenty of chemistry knowledge and this doesn't hold water. Realize that all this technology your constantly reminding us about still cannot bring a dead person back to life. Sure we can shock someones heart and get it beating again, or we can force air into someones lungs and keep them alive. We cannot reanimate a corpse!
That being said explain to me the "conditions" by which we need for random molecules to form a complex DNA chain with all the information on cell wall, organ, division, and other "ion pumping" mechanisms. After you work all this out then tell me how the enzymes were randomly already formed inside the cell wall. I am talking about the enzymes involved in cleaving the DNA and copying segments to be taken for protein synthesis.
Case closed.
swordfish
03-28-2007, 05:30 PM
Also
I believe that random DNA mutations can and do occur. Natural selection is a real thing and has been proven by selective breeding. Its fairly eccentric to think that our creator would not allow DNA to change.
Excuse me I just joined this discussion and I am far behind. The second Law of Thermodynamics...Entropy? Has anyone in here read this Law? Remember the speeches about hypothesis, theories, and LAWS. In this post you say that chemicals in a dead body have no means of acquiring energy and that entropy takes over. Then you want us to believe that random chemicals millions of years ago combined to form not only a system to acquire energy but also a system to replicate.
Please do not come at this argument half-assed. I have plenty of chemistry knowledge and this doesn't hold water. Realize that all this technology your constantly reminding us about still cannot bring a dead person back to life. Sure we can shock someones heart and get it beating again, or we can force air into someones lungs and keep them alive. We cannot reanimate a corpse!
That being said explain to me the "conditions" by which we need for random molecules to form a complex DNA chain with all the information on cell wall, organ, division, and other "ion pumping" mechanisms. After you work all this out then tell me how the enzymes were randomly already formed inside the cell wall. I am talking about the enzymes involved in cleaving the DNA and copying segments to be taken for protein synthesis.
Case closed.
Yeah, you're right, I have no background in chemistry, biology, molecular biology, microbiology or anything.
And you're right, because we don't know the answers right now, case closed indeed.
And Vegas and I have had the entropy discussion many times before.
All my explanations and arguments are scattered throughout, and I'd be happy to expound on them, but I don't have the time or energy to put them all into one post.
If you think I'm not qualified or don't know what I'm talking about, that's fine.
But I would hope some of the people I've debated with in the past would see the opposite.
Vegas
03-28-2007, 05:32 PM
Also
I believe that random DNA mutations can and do occur. Natural selection is a real thing and has been proven by selective breeding. Its fairly eccentric to think that our creator would not allow DNA to change.
There is variation within type, but to say that vertical evolution has or does happen is speculation.
swordfish
03-28-2007, 05:46 PM
My point is that you state entropy for why dead bodies do not live. A dead body is far closer to life than molecules floating in solution. Dead bodies have several chemical reactions that take place for days. By your logic evolution cannot happen. I have no idea what credentials you have I am just saying that I feel confident in my chemistry and these bullshit arguments don't work. You stated nothing about the complexity of DNA. You didn't even come up with some joke about the chicken and the egg. The last post said that because I doubt your logic that you obviously do not know anything etc etc. It clearly strays off the point and tries to avoid the issue.
Vegas doesn't have any trouble staying on topic. In response I have to say that some people have enzyme production that others do not. Some have more complex optic nerves that allow them to see more colors. They pass it on to their offspring. Dark skinned people naturally produce more pigment to block UV radiation. I do not believe in race per say. It was created as a division among mankind. We just have evolved differently to each different environment. This in no way excludes God.
My point is that you state entropy for why dead bodies do not live. A dead body is far closer to life than molecules floating in solution. Dead bodies have several chemical reactions that take place for days. By your logic evolution cannot happen. I have no idea what credentials you have I am just saying that I feel confident in my chemistry and these bullshit arguments don't work. You stated nothing about the complexity of DNA. You didn't even come up with some joke about the chicken and the egg. The last post said that because I doubt your logic that you obviously do not know anything etc etc. It clearly strays off the point and tries to avoid the issue.
I didn't say entropy is why dead bodies do not live. I said the lack of energy consumption/production is why bodies do not live. Then, with the lack of energy influx, entropy increases and bodies decay.
Dead bodies are partially digested by enzymes contained within the body, no doubt. But they still require energy (heat), i.e., if you put a body in a freezer and remove heat, it will not decay. Or if you denature the proteins, it will not decay. However, the bacteria in you, on you, and other organisms that get on you after you die have a huge effect on your decay. These are living organisms that have their own means of acquiring energy (mainly by eating you).
I don't see anywhere where my logic shows that evolution can't happen. My logic is that as long as an organism can maintain energy intake, said organism can maintain "order". When the mechanism of energy production ceases, "order" cannot be maintained.
My credentials include a BS in biology with a chem minor, a masters of science, and currently in a doctorate program. But, my chemistry is limited to the minor classes, and my physics is limited, so I don't expect myself to have great earth rattling rebuttals to 2nd law type things.
What about the complexity of DNA? Are you referring to when it's in a closed circular form it will supercoil (more ordered) rather than remain just an open circle (see plasmids)? The double helix? What complexity of DNA do you mean?
And you're right. My post was off topic and avoiding the issue because I've been on this topic for a couple days now here and elsewhere, and I thought I would take a break from it.
Now, I'm not sure if I will or not.
If you think I'm not qualified or don't know what I'm talking about, that's fine.
But I would hope some of the people I've debated with in the past would see the opposite.
I guess that's not the case.
Vegas
03-28-2007, 05:59 PM
I guess that's not the case.
I hope I didn't do anything to make you think I don't respect you. I do, a lot actually. I enjoy the scientific debates.
I hope I didn't do anything to make you think I don't respect you. I do, a lot actually. I enjoy the scientific debates.
No no, just being me. Which takes awhile for some (not you) to get used to.
swordfish
03-28-2007, 06:13 PM
I love scientific debates. I think proteins denature naturally over time. Not the other way around. I might just have a small mind. I just cannot believe that randomly all the things occurred that is needed for life to not only maintain energy but to replicate. You need hundreds of proteins already functioning just to maintain not to mention divide. A biology major should know as well as anyone the chemical complexity of a cell.
So let's look at it more basic. Has anyone in any conditions ever been able to take all of the elements necessary for life and produce life?
Have you ever seen God?
I love scientific debates. I think proteins denature naturally over time. Not the other way around. I might just have a small mind. I just cannot believe that randomly all the things occurred that is needed for life to not only maintain energy but to replicate. You need hundreds of proteins already functioning just to maintain not to mention divide. A biology major should know as well as anyone the chemical complexity of a cell.
Now you're telling me what I should and shouldn't know?
You do know that RNA can have enzymatic properties, right?
Will proteins denature over time? Under what conditions? Perhaps you're right. I have proteins in the freezer, both at -20 C and -80 C. Depends on how much "time" you're talking. 4 years? Nope, I've got stuff older than that. 2000 years? Now that's probable, I'd say.
And you don't need hundreds of proteins. Theoretically, you need one to replicate DNA. About 4 or 5 to make proteins from DNA (RNA polymerase, ribosomal proteins).
It all depends on what resources are available...amino acids, nucleotides, etc.
In a setting where those are in the environment, I would think a very primitive life could replicate relatively simply (as compared to higher vertebrates), but that's all speculation.
What else should I know as a bio major?
swordfish
03-28-2007, 06:18 PM
The more science I learn the more it reinforces my belief system. The more I dig the more evidence I find to support conclusions that contain both sides of the argument. DNA is more powerful than people can comprehend.
One early science discovery that I still think about is elastic collisions. Still to this day they cannot be explained by physical laws.
I love scientific debates. I think proteins denature naturally over time. Not the other way around. I might just have a small mind. I just cannot believe that randomly all the things occurred that is needed for life to not only maintain energy but to replicate. You need hundreds of proteins already functioning just to maintain not to mention divide. A biology major should know as well as anyone the chemical complexity of a cell.
Oh, I love scientific debates too.
swordfish
03-28-2007, 06:19 PM
So your saying that a cell can function and reproduce using only 5 proteins.
HAHAHA
So your saying that a cell can function and reproduce using only 5 proteins.
HAHAHA
Are you saying that God created the Earth in 6 days and then he rested?
The more science I learn the more it reinforces my belief system. The more I dig the more evidence I find to support conclusions that contain both sides of the argument. DNA is more powerful than people can comprehend.
One early science discovery that I still think about is elastic collisions. Still to this day they cannot be explained by physical laws.
I've heard from people that DNA created organisms just as a vehicle to replicate itself.
That's deep.
But, really, DNA can't do anything. No enzymatic activity, relatively stable (as opposed to RNA...those hydroxyl groups kill RNA).
So your saying that a cell can function and reproduce using only 5 proteins.
HAHAHA
That's what I said?
I hope I didn't do anything to make you think I don't respect you. I do, a lot actually. I enjoy the scientific debates.
How sweet.
So your saying that a cell can function and reproduce using only 5 proteins.
HAHAHA
If you mean this:
Theoretically, you need one to replicate DNA. About 4 or 5 to make proteins from DNA (RNA polymerase, ribosomal proteins).
Then you must've missed the 'theoretically' part.
Probably more than 5 to simply replicate its genome and divide...but not a whole lot more.
You have a better estimate?
swordfish
03-28-2007, 06:30 PM
Let me look at my text some I haven't read it in a few years. I will come back with my estimate to the number of proteins required.
Let me look at my text some I haven't read it in a few years. I will come back with my estimate to the number of proteins required.
Also, let me know what conditions you're assuming this organism is replicating in. Rich media? Minimal media? What organism? Theoretical organism or known?
If you talking human, then your thousands are correct. If you're talking a bacterium that's growing in rich media, that number severely drops.
It's all context, baby.
Are secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures of proteins more highly ordered (relative to the primary structure)? If so, what's the ordering mechanism? Does it defy the 2nd law?
swordfish
03-28-2007, 06:53 PM
First of all even a bacteria needs a cell wall. Cell walls need proteins to regulate water and ions. Are we to believe this cell formed formed itself with the DNA inside. Or did the DNA form the cell wall with the proteins inside. Still reading about prokaryotic cells and protein composition.
First of all even a bacteria needs a cell wall. Cell walls need proteins to regulate water and ions. Are we to believe this cell formed formed itself with the DNA inside. Or did the DNA form the cell wall with the proteins inside. Still reading about prokaryotic cells and protein composition.
Peptidoglycan. There's a difference between Gram pos and Gram neg in the amounts...neg has a 2nd cell membrane, so less PG.
But I'm sure you've got it ironed out what you're going to believe...I'd have to think about it for a bit.
You can get spontaneous lipid bilayer formation just by adding lipids to a volume of water. Also, proteins will have hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties, so they can insert in a membrane with energy just based on chemical properties.
but the PG (cell wall) probably came along long after the initial "life" form came about.
And check your facts about bacteria "needing" a cell wall. I'll submit Mycoplasma species as exhibit A.
My apologies, I need to clarify something I've been saying...
Lipids will not form lipid bilayers spontaneously, they need a hydrophilic head...therefore, it's phospholipids that will form a bilayer when added to water. The hydrophilic heads on the outside, hydrophobic tails on the inside.
Are secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures of proteins more highly ordered (relative to the primary structure)? If so, what's the ordering mechanism? Does it defy the 2nd law?
Nothing? C'mon, I do my best to answer any questions posed in these debates (and if I miss one, let me know)...
Also, what about phospholipids forming layers in water based on hydrophobic/hydrophilic properties?
also, post 55...
Vegas
03-28-2007, 09:07 PM
So...
???
With regards to the bacteria lateral gene transfer, is the resulting gene a new and better gene? There is a beneficial mutation, but will the affected bacterium compete as well in an environment devoid of the specific antibiotic?
And the Africans of which you speak, are there any negative aspects to the absent gene? And is the overall result a new and better gene?
With regards to the bacteria lateral gene transfer, is the resulting gene a new and better gene? There is a beneficial mutation, but will the affected bacterium compete as well in an environment devoid of the specific antibiotic?
And the Africans of which you speak, are there any negative aspects to the absent gene? And is the overall result a new and better gene?
For the bacterial question, yes, in regards to lateral transfer. Depending on how it was transferred, they may be able to lose the gene (if it's a plasmid, if it's a transposon, then it's there for an indeterminant amount of time).
As for the Africans, there are potentially negative aspects in regards to the immune system. However, the human immune system has a lot of redundancy, i.e. similar proteins can serve a similar function. I don't know for sure if the lack of chemokine (actually, it's a chemokine receptor now that I think about it) has a disadvantageous effect.
One of the problems with "observing" genetic mutations is that you only do testing if there's a bad thing. In a healthy individual there's little chance of any genetic tests being done to evaluate the stability of the genome, that is direct sequencing of DNA. There may some tests like for paternity suits or something like that, but that's more of a DNA pattern and doesn't really look directly at the sequence.
to do so would be some major dollarinis.
swordfish
03-28-2007, 09:33 PM
I thought mycoplasmas were either parasites or saprophytic. Both would mean it needed another organism to live.
I thought mycoplasmas were either parasites or saprophytic. Both would mean it needed another organism to live.
They're still bacteria, which to my understanding is what you referenced as needing a cell wall.
In fact, you need other organisms to live, so I don't get what your point is. A saprophyte doesn't have to live inside an organism like a parasite would (many of which do have cell walls in the case of bacteria, so that further confuses me on your point).
Wouldn't you agree?
swordfish
03-28-2007, 09:45 PM
Mycoplasmas seem to be degenerative. A saprophyte eats dead or decaying organic matter that was my point. Its hard for an organism to live by eating other dead organisms when it was the first.
swordfish
03-28-2007, 09:46 PM
Oh wait, I keep forgetting that before the first organism there was all this organic matter just hanging out waiting to be born.
swordfish
03-28-2007, 10:38 PM
I am having a hard time finding the number of genes and number of base pairs for the smallest known organism. I read 500 genes and 600,000 base pairs was lowest but that could easily form out of nothing.
Mycoplasmas seem to be degenerative. A saprophyte eats dead or decaying organic matter that was my point. Its hard for an organism to live by eating other dead organisms when it was the first.
Who said it was the first? You seem to be going off in all sorts of directions now. What does this have to do with bacterial replication?
I am having a hard time finding the number of genes and number of base pairs for the smallest known organism. I read 500 genes and 600,000 base pairs was lowest but that could easily form out of nothing.
Is that the lowest known organism or the lowest that ever existed.
I have no idea what the lowest is in terms of bacteria. Viruses can be much smaller, but you can make an argument whether or not those are actually "alive".
But that number of genes and that number of base pairs still doesn't get to the matter of the number of genes required for replication, which was the topic I thought we were discussing.
And as I've said, that number needed will be dependent on the particular conditions of growth.
And I don't believe anyone said the organism you've described formed out of nothing.
It may the most primitive, but that's not really the same as the "original".
At least in this biologist's point of view.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 12:14 PM
Is that the lowest known organism or the lowest that ever existed.
I have no idea what the lowest is in terms of bacteria. Viruses can be much smaller, but you can make an argument whether or not those are actually "alive".
But that number of genes and that number of base pairs still doesn't get to the matter of the number of genes required for replication, which was the topic I thought we were discussing.
And as I've said, that number needed will be dependent on the particular conditions of growth.
And I don't believe anyone said the organism you've described formed out of nothing.
It may the most primitive, but that's not really the same as the "original".
At least in this biologist's point of view.
So where did the first life cell come from?
I can't even say something inflammatory to get you nerds off this discussion.
So where did the first life cell come from?
I have no idea. And as I've said in the past, if I did, I'd be posting from a beach in Hawaii right now.
I've never made the claim that I or anyone else knows that...I'm sure it has been hypothesized how it could have happened, but there's really absolutely no way of knowing for sure, right? At least in terms of the knowledge currently available.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 12:34 PM
I have no idea. And as I've said in the past, if I did, I'd be posting from a beach in Hawaii right now.
I've never made the claim that I or anyone else knows that...I'm sure it has been hypothesized how it could have happened, but there's really absolutely no way of knowing for sure, right? At least in terms of the knowledge currently available.
I agree that nobody can know for sure. But we have two models available, which are evolution and creation. When you look at the complexity of DNA, would you say that the creation explanation is less scientific?
I agree that nobody can know for sure. But we have two models available, which are evolution and creation. When you look at the complexity of DNA, would you say that the creation explanation is less scientific?
What complexity of DNA? What specifically are you talking about in terms of complexity?
Vegas
03-29-2007, 12:44 PM
What complexity of DNA? What specifically are you talking about in terms of complexity?
The highly ordered, highly specific sequences in proteins, DNA, and RNA. Proteins generally have from about a hundred up to several hundred amino acids arranged in a precise order or sequence.
The highly ordered, highly specific sequences in proteins, DNA, and RNA. Proteins generally have from about a hundred up to several hundred amino acids arranged in a precise order or sequence.
Now you're adding to the issue. First you say complexity of DNA, but then you add in RNA and protein.
What if I were to tell you that the sequence of RNA and protein is basically the same as DNA?
And some proteins can have up to 1000 amino acids arranged in a specific order.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 12:49 PM
Now you're adding to the issue. First you say complexity of DNA, but then you add in RNA and protein.
What if I were to tell you that the sequence of RNA and protein is basically the same as DNA?
And some proteins can have up to 1000 amino acids arranged in a specific order.
I'm maintaining that the specific order thing points to creation. The probabilities of the specific order happening from randomness are essentially zero.
I'm maintaining that the specific order thing points to creation. The probabilities of the specific order happening from randomness are essentially zero.
Yeah, I know what you're maintaining, but you're not clarifying the questions you're asking me.
I'll do my best to answer the questions, if you really want them answered. And I'll preface them with saying there's a lot that I personally and biology as a whole doesn't know...not saying there are ideas, but cold hard facts...not always.
Are you basing your "essentially zero" probability on conditions today or conditions ever?
Either way, I'm not so sure that conditions today aren't right for it...they may be...
But I'm really interested in hearing how you think DNA is so complex...don't get me wrong, DNA is special...but I don't know that it's really all that complex. And , in terms of other things, I'd say it's quite simple. So simplistic that that's why it took until the 1950s before people knew how DNA worked.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 01:03 PM
Yeah, I know what you're maintaining, but you're not clarifying the questions you're asking me.
I'll do my best to answer the questions, if you really want them answered. And I'll preface them with saying there's a lot that I personally and biology as a whole doesn't know...not saying there are ideas, but cold hard facts...not always.
Are you basing your "essentially zero" probability on conditions today or conditions ever?
Either way, I'm not so sure that conditions today aren't right for it...they may be...
But I'm really interested in hearing how you think DNA is so complex...don't get me wrong, DNA is special...but I don't know that it's really all that complex. And , in terms of other things, I'd say it's quite simple. So simplistic that that's why it took until the 1950s before people knew how DNA worked.
I'm referring to the sequence. If you have all of the required amino acids and then put them into a chain sequence of let's say 20 (which is fewer than most proteins) and you wanted to get there by random chance, you have 20! combinations or 2432902008176640000. Even using the billions of years assumed to be available, the chances of that making itself is essentially zero.
I'm referring to the sequence. If you have all of the required amino acids and then put them into a chain sequence of let's say 20 (which is fewer than most proteins) and you wanted to get there by random chance, you have 20! combinations or 2432902008176640000. Even using the billions of years assumed to be available, the chances of that making itself is essentially zero.
You need to have a look at transcription and translation before you make the assumptions you make.
First off, protein is not DNA. Which one are we talking about?
Second, as I said before, the sequence of the protein depends on the sequence of the RNA.
RNA is the more "primitive" of the two ribonucleic acids. At least that's the working theory. The reason for this is that RNA is much more reactive than DNA because of an extra hydroxyl group (thus, deoxyribonucleic acid).
So, back to RNA/proteins...amino acid sequence is determined by RNA sequence, and codons within that RNA (groups of 3 bases). Depending on the 3 bases and the frame in which the ribosome reads, you'll get the amino acid inserted, forming a polypeptide chain.
But who says you need protein. Obviously, we do. BUT proteins in our body are mainly important for enzymatic function, no? Here's the cool part...some RNA sequences have been shown to have an enzymatic function. So potentially, that eliminates the early need for proteins...perhaps RNA just replicated itself. Now, in those terms, you still need a "correct" RNA sequence to do so. More than likely, however, you only need particular active sites of the RNA, not the whole thing...and those active sites may not be singular, i.e., a broad range of sequences may be able to have an active function, at least relative to what we're talking about...or perhaps a narrow range, but still, more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.
Now, you can still do probability as you did with proteins, but hey, check it out...whereas proteins have 20 building blocks (amino acids), RNA only has 4...adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil. And if you look at the structures, adenine and guanine are quite similar in structure as cytosine and uracil...just an oxygen here or a methyl group there.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 01:58 PM
You need to have a look at transcription and translation before you make the assumptions you make.
First off, protein is not DNA. Which one are we talking about?
Second, as I said before, the sequence of the protein depends on the sequence of the RNA.
RNA is the more "primitive" of the two ribonucleic acids. At least that's the working theory. The reason for this is that RNA is much more reactive than DNA because of an extra hydroxyl group (thus, deoxyribonucleic acid).
So, back to RNA/proteins...amino acid sequence is determined by RNA sequence, and codons within that RNA (groups of 3 bases). Depending on the 3 bases and the frame in which the ribosome reads, you'll get the amino acid inserted, forming a polypeptide chain.
But who says you need protein. Obviously, we do. BUT proteins in our body are mainly important for enzymatic function, no? Here's the cool part...some RNA sequences have been shown to have an enzymatic function. So potentially, that eliminates the early need for proteins...perhaps RNA just replicated itself. Now, in those terms, you still need a "correct" RNA sequence to do so. More than likely, however, you only need particular active sites of the RNA, not the whole thing...and those active sites may not be singular, i.e., a broad range of sequences may be able to have an active function, at least relative to what we're talking about...or perhaps a narrow range, but still, more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.
Now, you can still do probability as you did with proteins, but hey, check it out...whereas proteins have 20 building blocks (amino acids), RNA only has 4...adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil. And if you look at the structures, adenine and guanine are quite similar in structure as cytosine and uracil...just an oxygen here or a methyl group there.
But the sequence of the amino acids needs to be precise and my calculation for 20 in a chain is still valid, is it not?
And then there is still the issue of chirality, which makes the whole probability another order of magnitude more difficult.
But the sequence of the amino acids needs to be precise and my calculation for 20 in a chain is still valid, is it not?
And then there is still the issue of chirality, which makes the whole probability another order of magnitude more difficult.
If you insist on talking about proteins (not DNA or RNA), then please read up on translation. Otherwise, take my word for it. The protein sequence (amino acids) is based on RNA sequence. No organism ever known or ever hypothesized, nor any theory regarding the origin of life puts forth that proteins formed willy nilly.
Please, tell me what you want to talk about...you started off with DNA structure, but never explained yourself, then jumped to amino acid sequences, but not following the logic that proteins are made based on RNA sequence...I'm having a very hard time following the moves you make from one step to another.
Also, I'm not what you're going with in terms of chirality...d and l amino acids?
Vegas
03-29-2007, 02:17 PM
If you insist on talking about proteins (not DNA or RNA), then please read up on translation. Otherwise, take my word for it. The protein sequence (amino acids) is based on RNA sequence. No organism ever known or ever hypothesized, nor any theory regarding the origin of life puts forth that proteins formed willy nilly.
Please, tell me what you want to talk about...you started off with DNA structure, but never explained yourself, then jumped to amino acid sequences, but not following the logic that proteins are made based on RNA sequence...I'm having a very hard time following the moves you make from one step to another.
Also, I'm not what you're going with in terms of chirality...d and l amino acids?
I'm talking about the highly ordered sequences in proteins. How did that occur from natural processes?
I'm talking about the highly ordered sequences in proteins. How did that occur from natural processes?
RNA.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 02:19 PM
RNA.
So the RNA has the mapping information for extremely complex and precise sequences that couldn't happen by random processes?
So the RNA has the mapping information for extremely complex and precise sequences that couldn't happen by random processes?
Have you read up on translation like I suggested?
Yes, as I've said about 4 times, protein sequence is dependent upon RNA sequence.
But I will add that it's your words boldened, not mine, those words are not a part of my argument.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 02:27 PM
Have you read up on translation like I suggested?
Yes, as I've said about 4 times, protein sequence is dependent upon RNA sequence.
But I will add that it's your words boldened, not mine, those words are not a part of my argument.
But that is my argument. The sequence is designed and it couldn't just happen through random processes.
But that is my argument. The sequence is designed and it couldn't just happen through random processes.
And I disagree. I don't think we needed to go through all that to come to this conclusion.
You're conclusion is based on the 20!, right? First of all, as I've already said, it's more like 4! because of protein sequence being determined by RNA sequence (4 bases).
But probability is all relative, is it not? What I mean is, it's the probability in X number of chances that something will happen. Well, 20000000000000000 or whatever 20! was is low probability...but if the actual number of events happening is 9000000000000000000000000000000000000, well, then that probability becomes a little less prohibitive. No?
I just took a nice hot steamy shower...and thought about protein and probability.
Vegas, you say there's a 20! chance of a protein being made correctly, no? But that's assuming 1 particular sequence lining up, right?
That's very limiting...and very...wrong.
Which 1 protein are you thinking? For simple replication, DNA polymerase is absolutely necessary to replicate DNA. So, what's the sequence of DNA polymerase? Whoa, that's quite a question. Which DNA polymerase? In humans there are a few. In bacteria, there are 3. But still...the protein sequence of DNA polymerase is not the same throughout...there are quite a few differences, not just from species to species, but from kingdom to kingdom. And, even more, a protein doesn't rely on its entire sequence for activity. What I mean is that it's entirely possible to change the DNA in a few places (which in turn changes the RNA, which in turn can change the amino acid inserted, which thus changes the amino acid sequence) and still get a protein that is just as active, if not more, than the other.
So all of this means that there is an enormous number of ways that a peptide can be made that would result in a protein that could replicate DNA.
But that's just one protein. In all the ooze, there are also peptide sequences that would be made that would be nothing like DNA polymerase. Just because something isn't DNA polymerase doesn't mean it's not an enzymatic protein. So in all this ooze, there are potentially thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of proteins being made...randomly...all of which may be active even with a few differences in the primary structure (sequence).
So, in essence, that 20! that you describe is only really valid if you're looking at ONE particular amino acid sequence.
See what I mean?
But even with all of that, it skips the fact that RNA is enzymatic and early replication could have been based solely on RNA and proteins didn't come along for awhile.
Jiddy78
03-29-2007, 03:34 PM
If Vegas didn't melt in the sun, I'd tell you guys to get out more.
If Vegas didn't melt in the sun, I'd tell you guys to get out more.
It's my job.
Jiddy78
03-29-2007, 03:48 PM
It's my job.
I look forward to your participation in my upcoming "The goods and bads of the internal revenue code" thread.
I look forward to your participation in my upcoming "The goods and bads of the internal revenue code" thread.
Yeah. That one, I may have to take leave from.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 03:58 PM
I just took a nice hot steamy shower...and thought about protein and probability.
Vegas, you say there's a 20! chance of a protein being made correctly, no? But that's assuming 1 particular sequence lining up, right?
That's very limiting...and very...wrong.
Which 1 protein are you thinking? For simple replication, DNA polymerase is absolutely necessary to replicate DNA. So, what's the sequence of DNA polymerase? Whoa, that's quite a question. Which DNA polymerase? In humans there are a few. In bacteria, there are 3. But still...the protein sequence of DNA polymerase is not the same throughout...there are quite a few differences, not just from species to species, but from kingdom to kingdom. And, even more, a protein doesn't rely on its entire sequence for activity. What I mean is that it's entirely possible to change the DNA in a few places (which in turn changes the RNA, which in turn can change the amino acid inserted, which thus changes the amino acid sequence) and still get a protein that is just as active, if not more, than the other.
So all of this means that there is an enormous number of ways that a peptide can be made that would result in a protein that could replicate DNA.
But that's just one protein. In all the ooze, there are also peptide sequences that would be made that would be nothing like DNA polymerase. Just because something isn't DNA polymerase doesn't mean it's not an enzymatic protein. So in all this ooze, there are potentially thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of proteins being made...randomly...all of which may be active even with a few differences in the primary structure (sequence).
So, in essence, that 20! that you describe is only really valid if you're looking at ONE particular amino acid sequence.
See what I mean?
But even with all of that, it skips the fact that RNA is enzymatic and early replication could have been based solely on RNA and proteins didn't come along for awhile.
Just got back from lunch. Spicy Thai chicken curry. It was good.
Yes, I'm talking about one specific amino acid sequence. But the particular amino acid sequence of any protein molecules is responsible for unique biological activity. What happens when a single amino acid is missing or out of sequence?
Just got back from lunch. Spicy Thai chicken curry. It was good.
Yes, I'm talking about one specific amino acid sequence. But the particular amino acid sequence of any protein molecules is responsible for unique biological activity. What happens when a single amino acid is missing or out of sequence?
What's in bold is untrue. As I've said, you can mutate the sequence of the DNA, which causes a change in the RNA, which can cause a change in the amino acid at a particular position, or delete the particular amino acid, and still get a completely functional protein. You can change, to some extent, the amino acids in a protein, and not affect enzymatic activity. It just depends on what particular amino acid changes. Some are more important than others (mostly for folding purposes).
Roy Munson
03-29-2007, 04:06 PM
Incorrect.
You and apes have a common ancestor.
This is one of those misconceptions the anti-evolutionists like to throw out there to make the theory sound outrageous in some minds.
Sadly, it's probably also the way some HS teachers teach it.
Joke killer.
Joke killer.
There's nothing funny about science.
Except the clap.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 04:09 PM
What's in bold is untrue. As I've said, you can mutate the sequence of the DNA, which causes a change in the RNA, which can cause a change in the amino acid at a particular position, or delete the particular amino acid, and still get a completely functional protein. You can change, to some extent, the amino acids in a protein, and not affect enzymatic activity. It just depends on what particular amino acid changes. Some are more important than others (mostly for folding purposes).
How is that untrue?
How is that untrue?
I thought I explained it in the post. Did you not imply that an amino acid sequence can only be a certain permutation (right word?) before it will be biologically active? If that's what you meant, then it's completely wrong. Compare amino acids sequence of proteins involved in DNA replication between bacteria, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, fungi, mammals, and birds.
You will not find a consensus sequence. Therefore 1 particular sequence is not solely response for 1 particular function. There's room for variation.
I thought I explained it in the post. Did you not imply that an amino acid sequence can only be a certain permutation (right word?) before it will be biologically active? If that's what you meant, then it's completely wrong. Compare amino acids sequence of proteins involved in DNA replication between bacteria, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, fungi, mammals, and birds.
You will not find a consensus sequence. Therefore 1 particular sequence is not solely response for 1 particular function. There's room for variation.
I will go further to say that the "sequence" is not as important as the protein shape in terms of biological activity. A denature protein has the same sequence as a protein in the correct conformation, but it is not active.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 04:25 PM
I thought I explained it in the post. Did you not imply that an amino acid sequence can only be a certain permutation (right word?) before it will be biologically active? If that's what you meant, then it's completely wrong. Compare amino acids sequence of proteins involved in DNA replication between bacteria, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, fungi, mammals, and birds.
You will not find a consensus sequence. Therefore 1 particular sequence is not solely response for 1 particular function. There's room for variation.
Probably a poor choice of words on my part. I meant that any sequence is precise and that it would be a great leap of faith to say that they happened through natural processes.
swordfish
03-29-2007, 04:30 PM
Let us pretend that the RNA did in fact replicate. Where did the ribosomes come from to make the protein in the evolved organism. Are we supposed to believe that after millions of these self replicating RNAs (which cannot be found in nature) lived that proteins inside it just happened to form together to create a protein factory.
Back to the cell wall. I'm having a hard time grasping the cell wall argument. Logically the original RNA would only need coding for replication and energy storage. Without a form of energy storage that monster entropy takes over. Viruses can encode but not intake energy, which is why they are not alive. They need other living or dead organisms. I mentioned that bacteria have a cell wall and was referred to mycoplasmas which were then argued to not be close to the original cell. I am currently rereading my cellular biology and will come up with a model that we can argue and finally agree upon as the first cell.
Before I read this book again I will say that some cell wall structure had to be one of the first things encoded. I understand that lipids can align to form layers, but this does not remove the fact that the cell must divide and to do that it has to reinforce the cell wall. This means the cell wall would have to be encoded in the genome. The RNA would not just be floating in a magical fat vesicle and then integrate that into its genome.
swordfish
03-29-2007, 04:45 PM
From
Molecular Cell Biology James Darnell ... et al. 3d ed Scientific American Books 1995
Table 4.4 The Degeneracy of the Genetic Code
Number of
Synonymous ----------------------------------- Total Number
Codons --------------------Amino Acid ----------- of Codons
6 ---- Leu, Ser, Arg ---- 18
4 ---- Gly, Pro, Ala, Val, Thr ---- 20
3 ----Ile ---- 3
2 ----Phe, Tyr, Cys, His, Gln ---- 18
-----Glu, Asn, Asp, Lys
1 ---- Met, Trp ---- 2
Total number of codons for amino acids 61
Number of codons for termination 3
Total number of codons in genetic code 64
IE There are 20 amino acids with 3 of them coded by 6 different combos.
4^3rd = 64
4 being the number of nucleotides and 3 being the number of nucleotides needed to encode one amino acid.
This shows no room for randomness. Every available encryption is used for either amino acid creation or for termination of the code. Random events are not this ordered.
This does prove the fact of RNA mutations can yield no result during protein synthesis. It still makes the complexity issue much more compelling.
BoredWithNoSB
03-29-2007, 04:58 PM
Are we supposed to believe that after millions of these self replicating RNAs (which cannot be found in nature) lived that proteins inside it just happened to form together to create a protein factory.
I've been lost for a while, but I can get this one. I find the above statement much easier to have faith in than a mythical being who decided one day to create an earth water and animals and humans in it and after a few million years decided to encarnate his son and have him executed, and now all people who die will live forever in extacy.
Probably a poor choice of words on my part. I meant that any sequence is precise and that it would be a great leap of faith to say that they happened through natural processes.
Why? Assuming all conditions true and that all elements are available for chemical reactions (with heat serving as the energy for activation of chemical reactions in lieu of enzymes), there are untold numbers of combinations of chemicals that could come up, no?
If you're stuck on thinking each condition will only bring up 1 compound in particular, then yes, it would seem far fetched.
But if the building blocks are available, and conditions are there for random assortments of ribonucleic acids, deoxyribonuceic acids, or amino acids, there's an infinite amount of sequences that could occur. At least, until the building blocks are used up.
So if you're looking at a one time event getting the protein sequence you desire, you're right. But I see no evidence to say there's only one event.
If you have 1/2000000000 chance of getting something and you are allowed 2000000000 events, you've got a good shot at getting it...even if it's just 1000000000 events or even 500000000 events.
ryr8828
03-29-2007, 05:04 PM
I've been lost for a while, but I can get this one. I find the above statement much easier to have faith in than a mythical being who decided one day to create an earth water and animals and humans in it and after a few million years decided to encarnate his son and have him executed, and now all people who die will live forever in extacy.
So something from nothingness makes sense to you.
Let us pretend that the RNA did in fact replicate. Where did the ribosomes come from to make the protein in the evolved organism. Are we supposed to believe that after millions of these self replicating RNAs (which cannot be found in nature) lived that proteins inside it just happened to form together to create a protein factory.
Back to the cell wall. I'm having a hard time grasping the cell wall argument. Logically the original RNA would only need coding for replication and energy storage. Without a form of energy storage that monster entropy takes over. Viruses can encode but not intake energy, which is why they are not alive. They need other living or dead organisms. I mentioned that bacteria have a cell wall and was referred to mycoplasmas which were then argued to not be close to the original cell. I am currently rereading my cellular biology and will come up with a model that we can argue and finally agree upon as the first cell.
Before I read this book again I will say that some cell wall structure had to be one of the first things encoded. I understand that lipids can align to form layers, but this does not remove the fact that the cell must divide and to do that it has to reinforce the cell wall. This means the cell wall would have to be encoded in the genome. The RNA would not just be floating in a magical fat vesicle and then integrate that into its genome.
You make a lot of assumptions.
First of, you're familiar with rRNA, right? Ribosomal RNA? Involved in protein production? I know that today there are proteins involved in ribosomes. Were there always?
As far as energy, heat is energy, no? Many of the theories for the origin of life include a relatively hot Earth...there's lots of energy to be had from heat.
And your assertion that something needs a cell wall to replicate...humans don't have cell walls. Plants and bacteria do, however. I'm not sure about algae, though. My gut instinct tells me they do not all have cell walls, and they replicate just fine. As does Mycoplasma.
How do viruses "encode" energy? And how would a virus live on a dead organism?
Some of your other assumptions are that an organism must encode everything it needs to survive (lipids, for instance). Another false claim. If the medium in which the organism grows contains all essential nutrients, the organism needs to make none.
From
Molecular Cell Biology James Darnell ... et al. 3d ed Scientific American Books 1995
Table 4.4 The Degeneracy of the Genetic Code
Number of
Synonymous ----------------------------------- Total Number
Codons --------------------Amino Acid ----------- of Codons
6 ---- Leu, Ser, Arg ---- 18
4 ---- Gly, Pro, Ala, Val, Thr ---- 20
3 ----Ile ---- 3
2 ----Phe, Tyr, Cys, His, Gln ---- 18
-----Glu, Asn, Asp, Lys
1 ---- Met, Trp ---- 2
Total number of codons for amino acids 61
Number of codons for termination 3
Total number of codons in genetic code 64
IE There are 20 amino acids with 3 of them coded by 6 different combos.
4^3rd = 64
4 being the number of nucleotides and 3 being the number of nucleotides needed to encode one amino acid.
This shows no room for randomness. Every available encryption is used for either amino acid creation or for termination of the code. Random events are not this ordered.
This does prove the fact of RNA mutations can yield no result during protein synthesis. It still makes the complexity issue much more compelling.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Yes, there are 64 potential codons, but because of the wobble position (third position in the codon) an amino can be encoded for by more than one. But it is not necessary for a mutation to occur in the wobble position for a change in sequence to end in a still functional protein.
As I've said, you can insert a completely different amino acid (not DNA or RNA) into a protein sequence, and end up with the same functioning protein. In fact, there are many places you can insert, change, or delete an amino acid and have no effect whatsoever on the functionality of the protein.
Protein sequence is publicly viewable at the NCBI homepage, you can look up any protein you want, and compare it to proteins of similar function in other organisms to see that ONE particular sequence is not required for function...
So something from nothingness makes sense to you.
It's not nothingness. The building blocks are there. You are made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, and sulfur...along with some potassium, chloride, and sodium, for the most part. Obviously a few other things.
So are bacteria.
So is everything.
It's all chemical reactions.
No one says man rose from ooze...hell, no one says that bacteria rose from ooze, either...except maybe swordfish...but I'm not quite sure what he's saying exactly.
What we see today may be way more advanced than what was originally.
ryr8828
03-29-2007, 05:45 PM
It's not nothingness. The building blocks are there. You are made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, and sulfur...along with some potassium, chloride, and sodium, for the most part. Obviously a few other things.
So are bacteria.
So is everything.
It's all chemical reactions.
No one says man rose from ooze...hell, no one says that bacteria rose from ooze, either...except maybe swordfish...but I'm not quite sure what he's saying exactly.
What we see today may be way more advanced than what was originally.
My response to Bored had to deal with something from nothing as opposed to a Supreme Being who has always been and always will be.
You're talking about random creations from things that are already there. How did they get there? Where did they come from?
Since nothingness is mind boggling enough as it is, I will believe in my faith. Then I'll look at the science, with a strong bias to my faith.
swordfish
03-29-2007, 05:55 PM
You make a lot of assumptions.
First of, you're familiar with rRNA, right? Ribosomal RNA? Involved in protein production? I know that today there are proteins involved in ribosomes. Were there always?
As far as energy, heat is energy, no? Many of the theories for the origin of life include a relatively hot Earth...there's lots of energy to be had from heat.
And your assertion that something needs a cell wall to replicate...humans don't have cell walls. Plants and bacteria do, however. I'm not sure about algae, though. My gut instinct tells me they do not all have cell walls, and they replicate just fine. As does Mycoplasma.
How do viruses "encode" energy? And how would a virus live on a dead organism?
Some of your other assumptions are that an organism must encode everything it needs to survive (lipids, for instance). Another false claim. If the medium in which the organism grows contains all essential nutrients, the organism needs to make none.
The function of rRNA is to attract mRNA and catalyze bond formation. A ribosome just being rRNA with attached proteins that allow for binding sites during protein synthesis. I cannot say definately that proteins were always involved with ribosomes. I do know that you need mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA plus a gambit of enzymes just to create one protein.
Heat is a very good source of energy. The main problem is the effect of heat on DNA, RNA, and proteins. You earlier mentioned that denaturing does not occur rapidly at -20 and now you assume a high temperature which rapidly destroys these compounds.
Human cells do not have plasma membranes? This is news to me.
Mycoplasmas are not the original right? Plus they need a host or dead organic material due to the weakness of the genome.
Viruses do not encode energy absorption which is why I say they are not alive. They need a cell to penetrate and inject their DNA into. Are you supposing that viruses cannot be spread from dead animals? As I stated before cells live after a creature dies. The virus will continue to recreate itself inside the cells until they all bust from genetic viral material. The virus will not die just because the creature is dead.
If the first organism spontaneously erupted without the ability to repair itself and replicate immediately it will denature from all this energy(heat). Again entropy wins.
Energy is based on potential differences. If energy was all that is required then we might as well bow down to the sun gods that evolved there.
This mythical creature you seek seems to be far more unknown than mine.
My response to Bored had to deal with something from nothing as opposed to a Supreme Being who has always been and always will be.
You're talking about random creations from things that are already there. How did they get there? Where did they come from?
Since nothingness is mind boggling enough as it is, I will believe in my faith. Then I'll look at the science, with a strong bias to my faith.
Those are absolutely stellar questions, and I have no answers there. That, IMO, is beyond the scope of evolutionary theory, which deals with the beginnings of life, not the beginnings of the planets, universe, elements, etc.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 06:04 PM
Those are absolutely stellar questions, and I have no answers there. That, IMO, is beyond the scope of evolutionary theory, which deals with the beginnings of life, not the beginnings of the planets, universe, elements, etc.
Evolutionists say that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. When the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of something, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation?
ryr8828
03-29-2007, 06:04 PM
Those are absolutely stellar questions, and I have no answers there. That, IMO, is beyond the scope of evolutionary theory, which deals with the beginnings of life, not the beginnings of the planets, universe, elements, etc.
That sir, is the crux of the issue.
Jiddy78
03-29-2007, 06:07 PM
That sir, is the crux of the issue.
Sheep AND crux?
Oh man...You're lively tonight old man.
The function of rRNA is to attract mRNA and catalyze bond formation. A ribosome just being rRNA with attached proteins that allow for binding sites during protein synthesis. I cannot say definately that proteins were always involved with ribosomes. I do know that you need mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA plus a gambit of enzymes just to create one protein.
Heat is a very good source of energy. The main problem is the effect of heat on DNA, RNA, and proteins. You earlier mentioned that denaturing does not occur rapidly at -20 and now you assume a high temperature which rapidly destroys these compounds.
Human cells do not have plasma membranes? This is news to me.
Mycoplasmas are not the original right? Plus they need a host or dead organic material due to the weakness of the genome.
Viruses do not encode energy absorption which is why I say they are not alive. They need a cell to penetrate and inject their DNA into. Are you supposing that viruses cannot be spread from dead animals? As I stated before cells live after a creature dies. The virus will continue to recreate itself inside the cells until they all bust from genetic viral material. The virus will not die just because the creature is dead.
If the first organism spontaneously erupted without the ability to repair itself and replicate immediately it will denature from all this energy(heat). Again entropy wins.
Energy is based on potential differences. If energy was all that is required then we might as well bow down to the sun gods that evolved there.
This mythical creature you seek seems to be far more unknown than mine.
I agree on the t, m, and rRNAs...you need that for protein synthesis as we know it.
As for temperature effects on proteins, the DNA polymerase of Thermus aquaticus can withstand temperatures of 95 celsius. That's what allowed PCR to come to fruition...thank Kary Mullis for that one. However, not all proteins are stable at that temp...so, what's your point? Different proteins have different stabilities in different conditions. That does not preclude anything from having enzymatic activity in a hot climate.
Now you're talking plasma membranes? I think you need to stick a little more effort into reading your biology text and discern what is a cell wall and what is a cell membrane. The weakness of the genome? How do you measure strength of the genome? What are you talking about there? Because an organism feeds on dead animals means it's a weak genome? Tell me, when was the last time you consumed a live animal?
I never stated a virus couldn't be spread from a dead animal. But the spread of a disease and the replication of a replicon (in lieu of calling a virus an organism) are very different things. And if the virus is not alive, how can it die?
As for you comment about an erupted organism and denaturation from heat...by what mechanism? How much heat is necessary to denature RNA? DNA? Protein? Will it all denature at the same point?
I don't know what the sun gods have to do with anything. I know not of which mythical creature you propose I'm looking for, unless nature is a creature.
It seems to me you're just taking information out of a textbook...anything that seems relevant to the topic being discussed, without really thinking about if it applies. I could post the information from an entire textbook, too.
Evolutionists say that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. When the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of something, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation?
You can ask me questions about evolution in the context of what I've discussed here. Anything outside of that (origins of planets and such), I'm out.
And, there's nothing supernatural about not being able to explain something. Lack of knowledge is not proof of the supernatural.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 06:22 PM
You can ask me questions about evolution in the context of what I've discussed here. Anything outside of that (origins of planets and such), I'm out.
And, there's nothing supernatural about not being able to explain something. Lack of knowledge is not proof of the supernatural.
But when it comes to the origin of life, nobody has any answer other than supernatural process or another process nobody has been able to figure out, demonstrate, or even imagine.
And yesterday you stated that in order for someone to really understand the science of evolution that they need a lot more education than they are likely to get in high school biology classes (and I agree). I would say that the same applies to creation science. I'm not talking about a Sunday School teacher telling their class that God made everything and they need to have more faith. I'm talking about real understanding of the deeper scientific issues.
But when it comes to the origin of life, nobody has any answer other than supernatural process or another process nobody has been able to figure out, demonstrate, or even imagine.
Figure out or imagine? If I said Charles Darwin took a dump and man was there, that's something that was imagined...
As for demonstration, I'll simply point to 150 years of biological research that hasn't disproven evolution. That's quite a large bit of stuff. Comparative and developmental anatomy, physiology, and immunology as well. The fossil record (which I know you disagree with), too.
I think there's a lot of evidence supporting evolution. And also a lot of answers left to answer.
But if you're speaking of an absolute demonstration in a lab that you through in the basic elements and take out a living organism, no, that hasn't been done.
I really don't even know if anyone is trying anymore, or if any institution would fund the research. The theory has gone on strong (in the field of biology...in the public sector, that's another story), and like it or not, it's embedded in biology. It would take a major major major major discovery for much of biology to even contemplate thinking otherwise.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 06:32 PM
Figure out or imagine? If I said Charles Darwin took a dump and man was there, that's something that was imagined...
As for demonstration, I'll simply point to 150 years of biological research that hasn't disproven evolution. That's quite a large bit of stuff. Comparative and developmental anatomy, physiology, and immunology as well. The fossil record (which I know you disagree with), too.
I think there's a lot of evidence supporting evolution. And also a lot of answers left to answer.
But if you're speaking of an absolute demonstration in a lab that you through in the basic elements and take out a living organism, no, that hasn't been done.
I really don't even know if anyone is trying anymore, or if any institution would fund the research. The theory has gone on strong (in the field of biology...in the public sector, that's another story), and like it or not, it's embedded in biology. It would take a major major major major discovery for much of biology to even contemplate thinking otherwise.
Hasn't been disproved? Not completely, but it's been very discredited. Creation certainly hasn't been disproved either. I'm not saying that evolution shouldn't be taught, but have a lot of issues with how it is taught. And I think the science of creation should get equal time.
swordfish
03-29-2007, 06:36 PM
I agree on the t, m, and rRNAs...you need that for protein synthesis as we know it.
As for temperature effects on proteins, the DNA polymerase of Thermus aquaticus can withstand temperatures of 95 celsius. That's what allowed PCR to come to fruition...thank Kary Mullis for that one. However, not all proteins are stable at that temp...so, what's your point? Different proteins have different stabilities in different conditions. That does not preclude anything from having enzymatic activity in a hot climate.
Now you're talking plasma membranes? I think you need to stick a little more effort into reading your biology text and discern what is a cell wall and what is a cell membrane. The weakness of the genome? How do you measure strength of the genome? What are you talking about there? Because an organism feeds on dead animals means it's a weak genome? Tell me, when was the last time you consumed a live animal?
I never stated a virus couldn't be spread from a dead animal. But the spread of a disease and the replication of a replicon (in lieu of calling a virus an organism) are very different things. And if the virus is not alive, how can it die?
As for you comment about an erupted organism and denaturation from heat...by what mechanism? How much heat is necessary to denature RNA? DNA? Protein? Will it all denature at the same point?
I don't know what the sun gods have to do with anything. I know not of which mythical creature you propose I'm looking for, unless nature is a creature.
It seems to me you're just taking information out of a textbook...anything that seems relevant to the topic being discussed, without really thinking about if it applies. I could post the information from an entire textbook, too.
A membrane is needed to compartmentalize the energy. Whether it is a cell wall or a membrane its essentially a barrier. A cell has to store energy. I am sorry that I was not being specific before. I will be a lot more specific about what I am saying. Your right that some proteins can withstand high temp. Any organism that requires another organism to survive has a weak genome as far as this "original" organism is concerned yes. You can pump all the C, N, P, O, Na, K, and whatever else you want into a system and put as much heat as you like. These optimum conditions you seek are not possible due to entropy laws. Ion concentration, UV light, alkaline compounds, urea all assist in the denaturing of DNA. Entropy says all things go to 0. DNA does not obey.
I guess I will go burn this textbook since the information in it seems invalid to you. I guess Wikipedia would serve me better.
swordfish
03-29-2007, 06:38 PM
Everything in the known universe was created by the Big Bang. An explosion propelled this matter outward creating endless galaxies. Where did this matter come from you ask?
It was always there.
What is wrong with this argument.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 06:43 PM
Everything in the known universe was created by the Big Bang. An explosion propelled this matter outward creating endless galaxies. Where did this matter come from you ask?
It was always there.
What is wrong with this argument.
There is a very serious entropy argument to be made. If a all of the matter in the universe were in the cosmic egg which then exploded, you would see rectilinear motion from the point where the explosion occurred. That is not the motion we observe in the universe today. We see primarily elliptical motion. If you are counting on universal gravitation to pull things together to where they made our solar system for instance, there is an energy conservation problem which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
swordfish
03-29-2007, 07:35 PM
I don't have time for entropy, its textbook stuff. Scientists explained your theory away with Dark Matter. It's there we just can't see it. Seems real easy to say that God was not there and matter was. It is the same argument to me. Elastic collisions, magnetic fields created by molecules, DNA, etc all reinforces my thoughts about creation. Saying that DNA randomly formed is like saying the pyramid at Giza randomly formed. Those stones had millions of years to get there.
A membrane is needed to compartmentalize the energy. Whether it is a cell wall or a membrane its essentially a barrier. A cell has to store energy. I am sorry that I was not being specific before. I will be a lot more specific about what I am saying. Your right that some proteins can withstand high temp. Any organism that requires another organism to survive has a weak genome as far as this "original" organism is concerned yes. You can pump all the C, N, P, O, Na, K, and whatever else you want into a system and put as much heat as you like. These optimum conditions you seek are not possible due to entropy laws. Ion concentration, UV light, alkaline compounds, urea all assist in the denaturing of DNA. Entropy says all things go to 0. DNA does not obey.
I guess I will go burn this textbook since the information in it seems invalid to you. I guess Wikipedia would serve me better.
Sorry for leaving you hanging here...had to get some science done...now...
First off, I want to apologize if what I said was taken to mean that your book is inaccurate. That wasn't my intent. I'm sure the book is fine, it's the representation/interpretation I'm wondering about...the equation of cell membranes to cell walls, the assertion that the wobble hypothesis is the cause of mutations that allow a protein to function, that sort of stuff.
Anyway, on to your points above.
Why do you need to compartmentalize energy if you're getting it from the environment (heat)? A cell membrane is a barrier...is it completely impermeable?
A cell as we know it has to store energy. But we're not talking about a cell as we know it being the first one.
And I fully completely wholeheartedly disagree that an organism that needs another organism to feed off of has a degenerative genome. You couldn't live without plants or animals. And, as I've said, unless the animals you eat are alive, then you're living off of dead animals.
Optimum conditions are not possible due to entropy laws? Please explain.
As for compounds assisting in the denaturation of protein...at what concentrations? Are all proteins equally susceptible to denaturation by these compounds?
If conditions aren't right for the elements you described above to be present, how are urea and alkaline "compounds" going to be around? Anything that is a "compound" is made up of more than one thing, so how are these "compounds" ever in existence, even now, with the strictness you give to entropy?
Entropy says all things go to 0 eventually. How long does "eventually" take?
I have a packet of table sugar here. Should I expect to open it and find simply glucose and fructose rather than sucrose? Or for that matter, just a bunch of gas should escape, because, by entropy's standards, there should be nothing left in there but carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, no?
As for wiki, some things are represented fairly accurately, but I wouldn't use it as my first source of reference for much.
There is a very serious entropy argument to be made. If a all of the matter in the universe were in the cosmic egg which then exploded, you would see rectilinear motion from the point where the explosion occurred. That is not the motion we observe in the universe today. We see primarily elliptical motion. If you are counting on universal gravitation to pull things together to where they made our solar system for instance, there is an energy conservation problem which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Assuming the 2nd law rules over the entire universe...and also assuming that the universe is a closed system.
Saying that DNA randomly formed is like saying the pyramid at Giza randomly formed. Those stones had millions of years to get there.
except that it's on a micro- versus macroscopic level.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 08:29 PM
Assuming the 2nd law rules over the entire universe...and also assuming that the universe is a closed system.
The universe by definition is a closed system.
The universe by definition is a closed system.
Who's definition?
Vegas
03-29-2007, 08:33 PM
Who's definition?
The universe is everything that there is. How much more closed can you get?
The universe is everything that there is. How much more closed can you get?
A box welded shut.
Except of course, you let it sit out in the sun. Then there's an outside energy source.
Everything is relative. What is the universe? You say "everything."
What's everything. How much is everything? Is there so much everything that the things we've defined as laws on Earth don't apply to infinitely more than what the Earth is?
If the universe is expanding, how can it then include everything? What's it expanding into if it already contains everything.
Seems to me the answer isn't so cut and dry.
ryr8828
03-29-2007, 08:39 PM
A box welded shut.
Except of course, you let it sit out in the sun. Then there's an outside energy source.
Everything is relative. What is the universe? You say "everything."
What's everything. How much is everything? Is there so much everything that the things we've defined as laws on Earth don't apply to infinitely more than what the Earth is?
If the universe is expanding, how can it then include everything? What's it expanding into if it already contains everything.
Seems to me the answer isn't so cut and dry.
God knows.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 08:41 PM
A box welded shut.
Except of course, you let it sit out in the sun. Then there's an outside energy source.
Everything is relative. What is the universe? You say "everything."
What's everything. How much is everything? Is there so much everything that the things we've defined as laws on Earth don't apply to infinitely more than what the Earth is?
If the universe is expanding, how can it then include everything? What's it expanding into if it already contains everything.
Seems to me the answer isn't so cut and dry.
So what is your definition of the universe?
So what is your definition of the universe?
I have none, that's why I'm searching for a good one.
Some things are to expansive to put into words. A definition implies knowledge of the thing being defined, at least on some level.
First off, my particular education has not landed me in a class that discussed the universe, and second of all, I would imagine there are many people more learned than you or I on the subject, and they would probably have differing opinions on a definition of the universe.
Or not.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 08:45 PM
I have none, that's why I'm searching for a good one.
Some things are to expansive to put into words. A definition implies knowledge of the thing being defined, at least on some level.
First off, my particular education has not landed me in a class that discussed the universe, and second of all, I would imagine there are many people more learned than you or I on the subject, and they would probably have differing opinions on a definition of the universe.
Or not.
I studied astronomy and the classical definition they had of the universe was everything that exists everywhere.
I studied astronomy and the classical definition they had of the universe was everything that exists everywhere.
But how does that take into account the expansion of the universe...if the universe hasn't expanded all the way, then how does it include where it hasn't expanded?
If there's someplace for expansion of the universe, that someplace can't be a part of the universe, can it?
Anyways, in regards to the universe, I have only questions...no answers. Well, none besides smartassed ones.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 08:49 PM
But how does that take into account the expansion of the universe...if the universe hasn't expanded all the way, then how does it include where it hasn't expanded?
If there's someplace for expansion of the universe, that someplace can't be a part of the universe, can it?
How does the infinite universe expand?
How does the infinite universe expand?
Assuming the universe is infinite...
You don't believe the universe is expanding?
Vegas
03-29-2007, 08:58 PM
Assuming the universe is infinite...
You don't believe the universe is expanding?
I believe that matter in the universe is expanding into infinite space.
I believe that matter in the universe is expanding into infinite space.
So, the universe includes the space the matter is moving into?
Which is infinite?
How is infinity a closed system?
Vegas
03-29-2007, 09:01 PM
So, the universe includes the space the matter is moving into?
Which is infinite?
How is infinity a closed system?
Infinite space, finite energy and matter. The first law of thermodynamics says that energy and matter cannot be created.
Infinite space, finite energy and matter. The first law of thermodynamics says that energy and matter cannot be created.
Oh, OK.
What's the source of the finite energy? I.e., what has to disappear before entropy reaches equilibrium?
Vegas
03-29-2007, 09:04 PM
Oh, OK.
What's the source of the finite energy? I.e., what has to disappear before entropy reaches equilibrium?
All available energy is used up and the entire universe hits a uniform temperature. They call it the heat death, which is ironic since it will be downright cold.
All available energy is used up and the entire universe hits a uniform temperature. They call it the heat death, which is ironic since it will be downright cold.
Yeah, I know that part, but what is the source of the energy...what has to run out of steam for there to be no more energy and heat equals out?
And how are you sure that the area the matter is expanding into doesn't have other sources of energy to be consumed as the matter encounters it?
Vegas
03-29-2007, 09:09 PM
Yeah, I know that part, but what is the source of the energy...what has to run out of steam for there to be no more energy and heat equals out?
And how are you sure that the area the matter is expanding into doesn't have other sources of energy to be consumed as the matter encounters it?
All of the stars need to burn out. That will pretty much take care of everything.
And if there were more sources of energy outside of whatever boundary we put on the universe today, it's only because we can't see it now. It's still part of the "everything" principle.
All of the stars need to burn out. That will pretty much take care of everything.
And if there were more sources of energy outside of whatever boundary we put on the universe today, it's only because we can't see it now. It's still part of the "everything" principle.
OK, now that we're fully on entropy and stuff, would you agree that there are waves of order rather than disorder, but everything eventually will settle back to a direction of disorder?
Because, I really can't see how ANYTHING keeps its form if it's supposed to be disordering...
Vegas
03-29-2007, 09:13 PM
OK, now that we're fully on entropy and stuff, would you agree that there are waves of order rather than disorder, but everything eventually will settle back to a direction of disorder?
Because, I really can't see how ANYTHING keeps its form if it's supposed to be disordering...
I don't get what you mean by "waves of order?"
And I want to get back to the protein sequence eventually. I got busy and will be leaving work soon (I hope).
I don't get what you mean by "waves of order?"
And I want to get back to the protein sequence eventually. I got busy and will be leaving work soon (I hope).
I mean there are periods where there is more order than previous, but eventually disorder will reign supreme. Basically periods where there things are more ordered than they were previously, but still will become less ordered with time...kind of like looking at a graph of bad stock prices...a general trend down, but there is some peaks that occur, but the general trend is downward (towards disorder)...
I don't know how to explain it real well.
As for the protein sequence, I still don't quite understand where you're trying to go with it. I don't know of any way that anyone would argue that a protein would have to be made randomly before life could occur, seeing that RNA can be enzymatic...but I will continue to entertain questions as you see fit to ask.
Roy Munson
03-29-2007, 09:24 PM
All available energy is used up and the entire universe hits a uniform temperature. They call it the heat death, which is ironic since it will be downright cold.
Will that be anything like Y2K?
Vegas
03-29-2007, 09:24 PM
I mean there are periods where there is more order than previous, but eventually disorder will reign supreme. Basically periods where there things are more ordered than they were previously, but still will become less ordered with time...kind of like looking at a graph of bad stock prices...a general trend down, but there is some peaks that occur, but the general trend is downward (towards disorder)...
I don't know how to explain it real well.
As for the protein sequence, I still don't quite understand where you're trying to go with it. I don't know of any way that anyone would argue that a protein would have to be made randomly before life could occur, seeing that RNA can be enzymatic...but I will continue to entertain questions as you see fit to ask.
The only way you can have a decrease in entropy is when you have an ordering mechanism and a source of energy. A fine example is when a building is put up. You have a design, precisely manufactured materials, and the workers and cranes or whatever else. The raw materials are taken from a highly disordered state and converted into a highly ordered structure. In the isolated area, you have a decrease in entropy but with the energy consumed and the using up of resources you have an overall decrease.
Vegas
03-29-2007, 09:25 PM
Will that be anything like Y2K?
LOL I have friends that are disappointed up until this day that the whole thing went so seamlessly. They were predicting the gloom and doom.
The only way you can have a decrease in entropy is when you have an ordering mechanism and a source of energy. A fine example is when a building is put up. You have a design, precisely manufactured materials, and the workers and cranes or whatever else. The raw materials are taken from a highly disordered state and converted into a highly ordered structure. In the isolated area, you have a decrease in entropy but with the energy consumed and the using up of resources you have an overall decrease.
What about a snowflake? Stalactites/mites?
Ice crystals?
Or chemical reactions in which the product is more complex and more stable than the individual components that make it up?
Doesn't that have something to do with enthalpy?
Vegas
03-29-2007, 09:34 PM
What about a snowflake? Stalactites/mites?
Ice crystals?
Or chemical reactions in which the product is more complex and more stable than the individual components that make it up?
Doesn't that have something to do with enthalpy?
Enthalpy deals with fluids. It's the sum of the internal energy of the fluid plus the pressure energy in its environment.
Ice crystals are based on the arrangement of the atoms in the ice.
I have to catch my ride. I'll write more later.
Enthalpy deals with fluids. It's the sum of the internal energy of the fluid plus the pressure energy in its environment.
Ice crystals are based on the arrangement of the atoms in the ice.
I have to catch my ride. I'll write more later.
Don't worry, I'll be retiring for a bit shortly...no rush.
What about the other examples? Compounds forming and stalactites/mites?
swordfish
03-29-2007, 09:56 PM
Sorry for leaving you hanging here...had to get some science done...now...
First off, I want to apologize if what I said was taken to mean that your book is inaccurate. That wasn't my intent. I'm sure the book is fine, it's the representation/interpretation I'm wondering about...the equation of cell membranes to cell walls, the assertion that the wobble hypothesis is the cause of mutations that allow a protein to function, that sort of stuff.
Anyway, on to your points above.
Why do you need to compartmentalize energy if you're getting it from the environment (heat)? A cell membrane is a barrier...is it completely impermeable?
A cell as we know it has to store energy. But we're not talking about a cell as we know it being the first one.
And I fully completely wholeheartedly disagree that an organism that needs another organism to feed off of has a degenerative genome. You couldn't live without plants or animals. And, as I've said, unless the animals you eat are alive, then you're living off of dead animals.
Optimum conditions are not possible due to entropy laws? Please explain.
As for compounds assisting in the denaturation of protein...at what concentrations? Are all proteins equally susceptible to denaturation by these compounds?
If conditions aren't right for the elements you described above to be present, how are urea and alkaline "compounds" going to be around? Anything that is a "compound" is made up of more than one thing, so how are these "compounds" ever in existence, even now, with the strictness you give to entropy?
Entropy says all things go to 0 eventually. How long does "eventually" take?
I have a packet of table sugar here. Should I expect to open it and find simply glucose and fructose rather than sucrose? Or for that matter, just a bunch of gas should escape, because, by entropy's standards, there should be nothing left in there but carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, no?
As for wiki, some things are represented fairly accurately, but I wouldn't use it as my first source of reference for much.
Damn it , I had a good rebuttal and firefox bugged out.
I will apologize about the confusion about cell walls. I meant a membrane. Even mycoplasmas have a cell membrane. Is there any cell that does not have a membrane? Surely there are "conditions" somewhere where the energy can flow as you state.
Concerning the wobble hypothesis, I never asserted anything. You brought this up. I simply stated that due to genetic redundancy several combos can create the same protein. This means that a mutation may or may not change the expressed protein.
A cell membrane is permeable but only to certain things. The membrane creates a potential by collecting some ions and letting others out. Without a potential there is no more energy in the cell than in the total system. I cannot presume that heat is all that is needed when there is no cell in existence that exhibits life without a membrane.
If an organism needs to live inside another organism or off its decaying matter, that organism cannot survive without the host. If the organism originally formed without a host, where are the conditions for it to live without said host. I have never tried to compare humans , the original comment was about mycoplasmas which as you have stated are not the original. I said mycoplasmas seem degenerative.
You want conditions where all the bases, sugars and phosphates are floating in a solution of great enough temperature to cause positive reactions, but in a low enough temperature to slow down the denaturing of molecules. We also need a lack of ions like P and N which have high electronegativities and easily attack bonds. The problem lies in the fact that nucleotides are mainly made up of P,N,C,O. Since a reaction never proceeds to 100% there should be a concentration of these ions available to attack covalent bonds and once the chain is broken in one spot it will unravel.
To believe that DNA formed from a primordial stew, then question how an alkaline or urea compound would form is quite funny. I shouldn't have to say more on this.
Comparing sucrose to DNA is also quite a stretch. However after time has passed the molecules will evaporate and eventually disassociate into Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. Sugar does not form naturally without a living organism. If it does we need to work on these ethanol plants.
swordfish
03-29-2007, 10:06 PM
Sorry for leaving you hanging here...had to get some science done...now...
First off, I want to apologize if what I said was taken to mean that your book is inaccurate. That wasn't my intent. I'm sure the book is fine, it's the representation/interpretation I'm wondering about...the equation of cell membranes to cell walls, the assertion that the wobble hypothesis is the cause of mutations that allow a protein to function, that sort of stuff.
Anyway, on to your points above.
Why do you need to compartmentalize energy if you're getting it from the environment (heat)? A cell membrane is a barrier...is it completely impermeable?
A cell as we know it has to store energy. But we're not talking about a cell as we know it being the first one.
And I fully completely wholeheartedly disagree that an organism that needs another organism to feed off of has a degenerative genome. You couldn't live without plants or animals. And, as I've said, unless the animals you eat are alive, then you're living off of dead animals.
Optimum conditions are not possible due to entropy laws? Please explain.
As for compounds assisting in the denaturation of protein...at what concentrations? Are all proteins equally susceptible to denaturation by these compounds?
If conditions aren't right for the elements you described above to be present, how are urea and alkaline "compounds" going to be around? Anything that is a "compound" is made up of more than one thing, so how are these "compounds" ever in existence, even now, with the strictness you give to entropy?
Entropy says all things go to 0 eventually. How long does "eventually" take?
I have a packet of table sugar here. Should I expect to open it and find simply glucose and fructose rather than sucrose? Or for that matter, just a bunch of gas should escape, because, by entropy's standards, there should be nothing left in there but carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, no?
As for wiki, some things are represented fairly accurately, but I wouldn't use it as my first source of reference for much.
Damn it , I had a good rebuttal and firefox bugged out.
I will apologize about the confusion about cell walls. I meant a membrane. Even mycoplasmas have a cell membrane. Is there any cell that does not have a membrane? Surely there are "conditions" somewhere where the energy can flow as you state.
Concerning the wobble hypothesis, I never asserted anything. You brought this up. I simply stated that due to genetic redundancy several combos can create the same protein. This means that a mutation may or may not change the expressed protein.
A cell membrane is permeable but only to certain things. The membrane creates a potential by collecting some ions and letting others out. Without a potential there is no more energy in the cell than in the total system. I cannot presume that heat is all that is needed when there is no cell in existence that exhibits life without a membrane.
If an organism needs to live inside another organism or off its decaying matter, that organism cannot survive without the host. If the organism originally formed without a host, where are the conditions for it to live without said host. I have never tried to compare humans , the original comment was about mycoplasmas which as you have stated are not the original. I said mycoplasmas seem degenerative.
You want conditions where all the bases, sugars and phosphates are floating in a solution of great enough temperature to cause positive reactions, but in a low enough temperature to slow down the denaturing of molecules. We also need a lack of ions like P and N which have high electronegativities and easily attack bonds. The problem lies in the fact that nucleotides are mainly made up of P,N,C,O. Since a reaction never proceeds to 100% there should be a concentration of these ions available to attack covalent bonds and once the chain is broken in one spot it will unravel.
To believe that DNA formed from a primordial stew, then question how an alkaline or urea compound would form is quite funny. I shouldn't have to say more on this.
Comparing sucrose to DNA is also quite a stretch. However after time has passed the molecules will evaporate and eventually disassociate into Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. Sugar does not form naturally without a living organism. If it does we need to work on these ethanol plants.
swordfish
03-29-2007, 10:47 PM
Im not sure why this posted 2 times.
Damn it , I had a good rebuttal and firefox bugged out.
I will apologize about the confusion about cell walls. I meant a membrane. Even mycoplasmas have a cell membrane. Is there any cell that does not have a membrane? Surely there are "conditions" somewhere where the energy can flow as you state.
Concerning the wobble hypothesis, I never asserted anything. You brought this up. I simply stated that due to genetic redundancy several combos can create the same protein. This means that a mutation may or may not change the expressed protein.
A cell membrane is permeable but only to certain things. The membrane creates a potential by collecting some ions and letting others out. Without a potential there is no more energy in the cell than in the total system. I cannot presume that heat is all that is needed when there is no cell in existence that exhibits life without a membrane.
If an organism needs to live inside another organism or off its decaying matter, that organism cannot survive without the host. If the organism originally formed without a host, where are the conditions for it to live without said host. I have never tried to compare humans , the original comment was about mycoplasmas which as you have stated are not the original. I said mycoplasmas seem degenerative.
You want conditions where all the bases, sugars and phosphates are floating in a solution of great enough temperature to cause positive reactions, but in a low enough temperature to slow down the denaturing of molecules. We also need a lack of ions like P and N which have high electronegativities and easily attack bonds. The problem lies in the fact that nucleotides are mainly made up of P,N,C,O. Since a reaction never proceeds to 100% there should be a concentration of these ions available to attack covalent bonds and once the chain is broken in one spot it will unravel.
To believe that DNA formed from a primordial stew, then question how an alkaline or urea compound would form is quite funny. I shouldn't have to say more on this.
Comparing sucrose to DNA is also quite a stretch. However after time has passed the molecules will evaporate and eventually disassociate into Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. Sugar does not form naturally without a living organism. If it does we need to work on these ethanol plants.
Yes, everything I know of has a cell membrane. And cell membranes are semi-permeable. Depends on what you're trying to get across the membrane...also, since it's lipid, it can combine with vesicles that may have metabolites in them. Heat can certainly get across a membrane, so I don't know where you're getting the idea regarding an organism not needing a membrane.
Concerning wobble, you asserted that wobble is what I was talking about in terms of the mutations, which I was not. I think you're completely missing my point on that. With wobble, you can change the DNA sequence, but still have the same amino acid inserted. But other mutations, in which an incorrect AA or even no AA is inserted, can still result in functional proteins. That was my assertion, which has nothing to do with wobble.
And this statement is utterly false. Completely wrong..."If an organism needs to live inside another organism or off its decaying matter, that organism cannot survive without the host. " Actually, it's half right. If it needs to live inside a host, then it obviously is an obligate parasite. But the second half is utter nonsense. An organism that feeds on dead or decaying is not a parasite. That's the equivalent of you saying you're a parasite because you need to eat protein. You claim mycoplasmas are degenerative...others would claim they're precursors. But your rationale in regards to them and eating decaying matter is biologically not based in facts.
Your comments about conditions and elements floating around...you say you cannot have high enough temperatures for activation of a chemical reaction because the high temperature would denature. That's bad logic. The activation energy will be different for all reactions...some higher, some lower, and also, the temperature at which proteins and DNA denature are equally variable. To say that a temp that provides the energy needed for a reaction and is automatically too high for said compound to exist is wrong. What the activation energies are for particular reactions to produce aminos, ribos, and deoxyribos, I do not know. And your comments about P, C, N, and O...well, oxygen by itself is highly oxidative...but it will also attack other oxygens, and you'll get O2. Don't forget hydrogen in there, too, so some water will form. But some of the reactive oxygen would be needed to form the hydroxyl groups on DNA and RNA subunits. Your comments, as I see them, are correct, but the fact that there will be reactive intermediates does not prohibit the formation of all molecules.
Now, for the urea stuff. You say DNA cannot form, but urea can. I would think your comments should be as equally funny to you as mine are. No? DNA, after all, is a chemical, just like urea. Chemical bonds...namely phosphodiester...and some bonds are stronger than others, no?
And yes, I compare sucrose to DNA. But tell me, how will molecules "evaporate"? How long will it take before the bonds breaK? An hour? A day? A decade? How much energy will it take? Will it require an enzyme? Will it require something else to happen to it? Or does it just simply completely dissociate? What happens to the carbon? Carbon isn't a gas like oxygen or nitrogen or hydrogen...methane is...but then what is methane? One carbon with 4 hydrogens. Still more complex and ordered than just a hydrogen or a carbon. Speaking of that, isn't oxygen found mostly at 02 and sometimes 03?
What causes that O2 to dissociate? Why haven't we run out of breathable oxygen if entropy would reduce it to elemental oxygen...and also, why haven't we completely oxidized due to entropy creating all O2 to O-?
swordfish
03-29-2007, 11:42 PM
I will apologize about the confusion about cell walls. I meant a membrane. Even mycoplasmas have a cell membrane. Is there any cell that does not have a membrane?
[QUOTE=LSU;1398]Yes, everything I know of has a cell membrane. And cell membranes are semi-permeable. Depends on what you're trying to get across the membrane...also, since it's lipid, it can combine with vesicles that may have metabolites in them. Heat can certainly get across a membrane, so I don't know where you're getting the idea regarding an organism not needing a membrane.
Concerning wobble, you asserted that wobble is what I was talking about in terms of the mutations, which I was not. I think you're completely missing my point on that. With wobble, you can change the DNA sequence, but still have the same amino acid inserted. But other mutations, in which an incorrect AA or even no AA is inserted, can still result in functional proteins. That was my assertion, which has nothing to do with wobble.
And this statement is utterly false. Completely wrong..."If an organism needs to live inside another organism or off its decaying matter, that organism cannot survive without the host. " Actually, it's half right. If it needs to live inside a host, then it obviously is an obligate parasite. But the second half is utter nonsense. An organism that feeds on dead or decaying is not a parasite. That's the equivalent of you saying you're a parasite because you need to eat protein. You claim mycoplasmas are degenerative...others would claim they're precursors. But your rationale in regards to them and eating decaying matter is biologically not based in facts.
Your comments about conditions and elements floating around...you say you cannot have high enough temperatures for activation of a chemical reaction because the high temperature would denature. That's bad logic. The activation energy will be different for all reactions...some higher, some lower, and also, the temperature at which proteins and DNA denature are equally variable. To say that a temp that provides the energy needed for a reaction and is automatically too high for said compound to exist is wrong. What the activation energies are for particular reactions to produce aminos, ribos, and deoxyribos, I do not know. And your comments about P, C, N, and O...well, oxygen by itself is highly oxidative...but it will also attack other oxygens, and you'll get O2. Don't forget hydrogen in there, too, so some water will form. But some of the reactive oxygen would be needed to form the hydroxyl groups on DNA and RNA subunits. Your comments, as I see them, are correct, but the fact that there will be reactive intermediates does not prohibit the formation of all molecules.
Now, for the urea stuff. You say DNA cannot form, but urea can. I would think your comments should be as equally funny to you as mine are. No? DNA, after all, is a chemical, just like urea. Chemical bonds...namely phosphodiester...and some bonds are stronger than others, no?
And yes, I compare sucrose to DNA. But tell me, how will molecules "evaporate"? How long will it take before the bonds breaK? An hour? A day? A decade? How much energy will it take? Will it require an enzyme? Will it require something else to happen to it? Or does it just simply completely dissociate? What happens to the carbon? Carbon isn't a gas like oxygen or nitrogen or hydrogen...methane is...but then what is methane? One carbon with 4 hydrogens. Still more complex and ordered than just a hydrogen or a carbon. Speaking of that, isn't oxygen found mostly at 02 and sometimes 03?
What causes that O2 to dissociate? Why haven't we run out of breathable oxygen if entropy would reduce it to elemental oxygen...and also, why haven't we completely oxidized due to entropy creating all O2 to O-?
What part of my argument makes you think this. I have been proposing that the first cell needed a wall(membrane). You argued that mycoplasmas do not have a cell wall, they do however have a cell membrane. I asked if any cell lives without a membrane and you say that I stated that cells exist without membranes? What the hell. Show me where I said a cell does not need a membrane. My whole argument is based on cells needing barriers to compartmentalize energy. You are correct that heat can cross a membrane, so why do you exclude a membrane in the first cell.
I never mentioned wobble. Your post mentions wobble, my post mentions that several 3 base codes can create the same amino acid. Hence a mutation in the RNA(from incorrect base pairing) could yield the same protein due to redundancy.
An organism that feeds on dead or decaying matter is a saprophyte(saprotroph). I thought we went through this. I never alluded to them being parasites. I simply stated that they need decaying matter to survive. Hence they need organic matter to sustain life. They do not get energy from the sun, or from heat. They need to absorb cholesterol to maintain structure.
I will agree that basic proteins and nucleotide structures could form. The ones you propose contain thousands of base pairs. Urea has been formed in a lab. When will RNA be synthesized?
Does sugar have a melting point? A heat of vaporization? Does UV light effect bonds? The stability of a sugar molecule is many times greater than that of DNA. Sugar breaks down into carbon, carbon dioxide and water. Water will effect sugar by hydrolysis. Of course enzymes would speed up the reaction, and by your logic they should be floating around in abundance.
Why would entropy turn O2 into O-. Oxygen will naturally bond to itself to form gaseous oxygen. The available electrons will double bond to fill the outer shell. It would take energy to break O2 into O-, not the other way around.
[QUOTE=swordfish;1379]
What part of my argument makes you think this. I have been proposing that the first cell needed a wall(membrane). You argued that mycoplasmas do not have a cell wall, they do however have a cell membrane. I asked if any cell lives without a membrane and you say that I stated that cells exist without membranes? What the hell. Show me where I said a cell does not need a membrane. My whole argument is based on cells needing barriers to compartmentalize energy. You are correct that heat can cross a membrane, so why do you exclude a membrane in the first cell.
Because we have so many topics going here, I'm going to break each on down by topic to make it easier for me...first part first...
There is a distinction between a cell wall and a cell (plasma) membrane, you were using the two interchangably earlier. At first you said cells need a wall to replicate and that's not true. You then explained that you meant cell membrane rather than cell wall, and I agree, at least in terms of what we know now...and even with that, I can't imagine an organism not having a cell membrane (but not having a cell wall is perfectly fine). And I don't remember stating that you said cells can replicate without a membrane (if I did, I apologize for it), but I did ask if there were any organisms that replicate with a cell membrane...I don't know of any, but it was a question, not a statement.
Now, I don't think I ever excluded cell membranes from the first organism. I did say they could have a lipid bilayer that formed...and a cell membrane is a lipid bilayer...
But one statement I did make is that a cell may not need a cell membrane to compartmentalize energy. That's not to say that a cell membrane isn't need, but that comparmentalized energy isn't needed. IF the earliest organisms were simply enzymatic RNA sequences that have replicative activity, in order to replicate the genome, all you'd need is the U, T, C, and A molecules, and heat (not necessarily heat, per se, but an energy source...thus heat). Now the main question would be how does the NTPs (UTCA) cross the membrane to get to the replicative RNA? That's where the joining of membranes come into play...if phospholipids are in the medium and NTPs are also in there, it may be reasonable to expect the lipids to form a bilayer around the NTPs, packaging them. Since the layers around the RNA would have the same properties (hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions) the membranes could join, allowing the replicative RNA access to the NTPs.
Just a thought...I haven't read anything in any biology text that would lead me to believe this is anywhere near true.
[QUOTE=swordfish;1379]
I never mentioned wobble. Your post mentions wobble, my post mentions that several 3 base codes can create the same amino acid. Hence a mutation in the RNA(from incorrect base pairing) could yield the same protein due to redundancy.
You absolutely did mention wobble...you didn't expressly call it "wobble" but you certainly brought it up. The wobble hypothesis is basically that the 3rd position in a codon is relatively unimportant in some aspects, and that's why more than one codon can code for a particular amino acid.
What you're describing above is definitely wobble.
http://big.mcw.edu/display.php/1554.html
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/BioEllipse/courses/biol114/Chap05/Chapter05.html
But that isn't the type of mutation I'm talking about. I've explained it at least twice.
[QUOTE=swordfish;1379]
An organism that feeds on dead or decaying matter is a saprophyte(saprotroph). I thought we went through this. I never alluded to them being parasites. I simply stated that they need decaying matter to survive. Hence they need organic matter to sustain life. They do not get energy from the sun, or from heat. They need to absorb cholesterol to maintain structure.
That's better, at least in my understanding, compared to what I read before regarding this.
Every organism today needs organic matter to sustain life. How does that make saprophytes degenerative? Only plants get usable energy from the sun.
And...as before...most organisms need cholesterol to in their plasma membranes. What does this have to do with anything? Just seems you chose one random fact from the book to put in..???
[QUOTE=swordfish;1379]
I will agree that basic proteins and nucleotide structures could form. The ones you propose contain thousands of base pairs. Urea has been formed in a lab. When will RNA be synthesized?
OK, so basic proteins (what does "basic" mean...short?) and nts could form. Which ones have I proposed that contain thousands?
When will RNA be synthesized in a lab? How do you mean? In the same manner than urea was formed in a lab? What manner was that?
If you concede that basic nucleotides could form, you're saying that basic chemical bonds could form. And if basic chemical bonds could form, why couldn't a phosphodiester bond form between two nucleotides? If that can happen, you have RNA synthesis.
Does sugar have a melting point? A heat of vaporization? Does UV light effect bonds? The stability of a sugar molecule is many times greater than that of DNA. Sugar breaks down into carbon, carbon dioxide and water. Water will effect sugar by hydrolysis. Of course enzymes would speed up the reaction, and by your logic they should be floating around in abundance.
I don't know what the melting point of sugar is...or the heat of vaporization...
How does UV light affect the bonds, break them?
Do you have the figures to back up that sugar is more stable than DNA? I don't doubt you, I would just like to compare the values for my own knowledge...I know a phosphodiester bond (the ones between nucleotides) are pretty strong, and the main structure of a nucleotide is ribose, which if I remember correctly isn't as stable as a 6 carbon sugar...
As for the enzymes, I haven't contended any one particular enzyme would be in abundance but I think it's plausible that it could be present.
Why would entropy turn O2 into O-. Oxygen will naturally bond to itself to form gaseous oxygen. The available electrons will double bond to fill the outer shell. It would take energy to break O2 into O-, not the other way around.
But isn't a structure with 2 molecules more ordered or complex than a structure with just one?? Disorder is disorder, is it not? Or is it in this case that a more complex structure is actually more disordered?
That opens up a whole new conversation if so...
Regardless of the size, if the compound was stable, it wouldn't be subject to entropy?
And I don't remember stating that you said cells can replicate without a membrane (if I did, I apologize for it), but I did ask if there were any organisms that replicate with a cell membrane...I don't know of any, but it was a question, not a statement.
edit button disappeared...
need to amend this to say this:
And I don't remember stating that you said cells can replicate without a membrane (if I did, I apologize for it), but I did ask if there were any organisms that replicate without a cell membrane...I don't know of any, but it was a question, not a statement.
Vegas
03-30-2007, 12:07 PM
Don't worry, I'll be retiring for a bit shortly...no rush.
What about the other examples? Compounds forming and stalactites/mites?
A snowflake can have an incredibly beautiful design and appear quite complex, but every snowflake results from water molecules "doing what comes naturally" under certain conditions at 0° C. A tile mosaic done in a snowflake pattern has no greater apparent design and perhaps even less complexity, yet we recognize it as a created pattern. Because we know that bits of colored stone have no tendency to arrange or maintain themselves in such patterns. Such a pattern must be imposed from the outside, and something must be used to maintain the tiles in proper alignment.
In spontaneous systems like the snowflake, properties of the whole are completely derived from properties of the parts. In created systems, properties of organization from the outside can add new properties on the parts, properties that the parts of the system do not and cannot develop on their own. In short, time, chance and natural processes can produce only systems whose order is "internally determined;" creation can produce systems with "externally determined" order.
In spontaneous systems like the snowflake, properties of the whole are completely derived from properties of the parts. In created systems, properties of organization from the outside can add new properties on the parts, properties that the parts of the system do not and cannot develop on their own. In short, time, chance and natural processes can produce only systems whose order is "internally determined;" creation can produce systems with "externally determined" order.
Which is a point I've been trying to make in regards to the structure of DNA and the structure of proteins.
For DNA, the double helix and the double strand is due to inherent properties of the compounds themselves...hydrogen bonding and other bonds, for the most part.
Same with secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structure of proteins...all the way the bonds form...hydrogen and disulfide bridges.
So, the complexity (or lack thereof) of a protein is really just the bonds and how the interactions occur between polar and nonpolar (hydrophobic and hydrophilic) amino acids, acidic or basic amino acids, etc.
And the primary structure (sequence) of amino acids is determined by the DNA, or more specifically, the RNA sequence. So, protein sequence and potentially folding characteristics can all be predicted by nucleic acid sequence and properties of the amino acids themselves.
Not really complex at all, if you ask me.
So now, you get into the questions of the DNA and RNA forming and its complexity rather than complexity of proteins, no?
Vegas
03-30-2007, 04:01 PM
Which is a point I've been trying to make in regards to the structure of DNA and the structure of proteins.
For DNA, the double helix and the double strand is due to inherent properties of the compounds themselves...hydrogen bonding and other bonds, for the most part.
Same with secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structure of proteins...all the way the bonds form...hydrogen and disulfide bridges.
So, the complexity (or lack thereof) of a protein is really just the bonds and how the interactions occur between polar and nonpolar (hydrophobic and hydrophilic) amino acids, acidic or basic amino acids, etc.
And the primary structure (sequence) of amino acids is determined by the DNA, or more specifically, the RNA sequence. So, protein sequence and potentially folding characteristics can all be predicted by nucleic acid sequence and properties of the amino acids themselves.
Not really complex at all, if you ask me.
So now, you get into the questions of the DNA and RNA forming and its complexity rather than complexity of proteins, no?
So the DNA is the ordering mechanism, which in my interpretation points to design.
So the DNA is the ordering mechanism, which in my interpretation points to design.
Or the RNA...you can't have protein without the mRNA no matter how much DNA you have.
How does that point to design? DNA can't form spontaneously? It's much less complex than proteins (in terms of building blocks)...there are only 4 building blocks for DNA (thymine, cytosine, adenine, guanine) and 4 for RNA (uracil, cytosine, adenine, guanine) and if you look at the structures of those chemicals, there are striking similarities, mainly between cytosine, thymine, and uracil and adenine and guanine. Just an added methyl group here or an oxygen there...
And again, the structure of DNA and RNA is completely chemically based...nucleotides held together by phosphodiester bonds and strands held together by 2 or 3 hydrogen bonds, depending on the base pair...for DNA, A always pairs with T and G always with C...RNA is U with A and C with G.
Nothing fancy there.
Hasn't been disproved? Not completely, but it's been very discredited. Creation certainly hasn't been disproved either. I'm not saying that evolution shouldn't be taught, but have a lot of issues with how it is taught. And I think the science of creation should get equal time.
Forgot to mention this earlier...
I must've had some effect on you then, because it seemed that when we first began discussing this issue, you had the idea that evolution was impossible...if you think it's alright to be taught, you must have some shred (even the smallest) that it is possible, even if you still believe it's highly unlikely...
Either that or you were just being coy...
Awesome.
Vegas
03-30-2007, 05:00 PM
Forgot to mention this earlier...
I must've had some effect on you then, because it seemed that when we first began discussing this issue, you had the idea that evolution was impossible...if you think it's alright to be taught, you must have some shred (even the smallest) that it is possible, even if you still believe it's highly unlikely...
Either that or you were just being coy...
Awesome.
I wasn't being coy (not on purpose anyway). I have thought for several years that both evolution and creation should be taught as long as they give the scientific reasons for creation only. I would not condone a simple reading of religious teachings and call that equal time. You did bring up a good point earlier that it would be difficult for a teacher to teach both sides without bias.
I have a ton of work today and will have little time for discussion. I do have a question regarding translation. Do you have a good website or reference on that? I want to do some research.
I wasn't being coy (not on purpose anyway). I have thought for several years that both evolution and creation should be taught as long as they give the scientific reasons for creation only. I would not condone a simple reading of religious teachings and call that equal time. You did bring up a good point earlier that it would be difficult for a teacher to teach both sides without bias.
I have a ton of work today and will have little time for discussion. I do have a question regarding translation. Do you have a good website or reference on that? I want to do some research.
I'll do a search and find something that seems to be right (in terms of what I have been taught is "right").
No worries about not having time...I'm having a few things to get done myself.
OK, this thing is a good starter...has good diagrams, and somewhat good info in text... http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/biocoach/translation/intro.html
Keep in mind, that is for eukaryotic protein synthesis, which is a little bit more advanced that prokaryotic (same basic concepts, though), and this is based on how things work, so in evolutionary terms, more efficient..."original" processes may not have been as complex or efficient...actually given the theory, it would be almost certain it was much much less complex.
And I read through the wiki information, and it's seems pretty good for the most part, but it lacks the fancy animations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(genetics)
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/BioEllipse/courses/biol114/Chap05/Chapter05.html
http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/dna/b/translation/translation.html
This should be enough to keep you busy for a bit. Let me know if you need clarification on it...my specialty is bacterial genetics...some of my eukaryotic genetics is lacking...
Vegas, when you have a chance, what exactly are the scientific reasons for Creation?
swordfish
03-30-2007, 06:06 PM
Vegas, when you have a chance, what exactly are the scientific reasons for Creation?
life
life
If that's all you've got, it's been a nice discussion.
swordfish
03-30-2007, 06:36 PM
Dirt has ever single chemical needed for life.
A virus has everything needed for life. And can replicate.
The thing about a dead body is...(drum roll please)
It has no means to acquire the energy needed to live.
And entropy takes over.
I hate to regress. This should help with my point about life. You state that a dead body has no means to acquire energy to live. What energy are we talking about. If doctors could just inject chemicals to keep us alive then people would not die so easily. Blood circulation, lung function, kidney function, most all torso functions can easily be done by machine. We eat food that our stomach breaks down into nutrients that can be given in an IV. Your brain needs sugar and oxygen, both of which can be given with mechanical systems. People die every day that have normal bodies and of no apparent reason. How can an elderly person "give up" if it just requires chemical reactions. Many times older spouses will die within several weeks of the other. Is this because they both have the same biological clock? Age is no concern when it comes to death.
Also a virus has everything needed for life except for a living cell to inject its DNA into. It does not replicate of its own accord.
I hate to regress. This should help with my point about life. You state that a dead body has no means to acquire energy to live. What energy are we talking about. If doctors could just inject chemicals to keep us alive then people would not die so easily. Blood circulation, lung function, kidney function, most all torso functions can easily be done by machine. We eat food that our stomach breaks down into nutrients that can be given in an IV. Your brain needs sugar and oxygen, both of which can be given with mechanical systems. People die every day that have normal bodies and of no apparent reason. How can an elderly person "give up" if it just requires chemical reactions. Many times older spouses will die within several weeks of the other. Is this because they both have the same biological clock? Age is no concern when it comes to death.
Also a virus has everything needed for life except for a living cell to inject its DNA into. It does not replicate of its own accord.
I'll start with the virus. You're correct. A virus in and of itself can't replicated without a host to provide dNTPs, NTPs, and amino acids, and probably some energy as well. Some viruses carry their own polymerases while others don't. But depending on how you're viewing it, a virus certainly has the means to acquire what it needs to replicate...they're very good at hijacking the host's machinery for their needs and their needs only. But, within the capsid alone, it doesn't have everything required.
What you're talking about is with energy consumption is entropy at its finest. Through whatever reason, disease, injury, what have you, the body can't keep up forever. Organs can fail...processes cease to be, and the body either can't filter out toxins (liver), can't maintain osmolarity or filtering function (kidneys), can't pump blood well (heart), or can't acquire oxygen for cellular function (lungs), and the body peters out. Yes, a body can be kept alive indefinitely using modern technology, but is that really alive? That's open for debate.
Age is of no concern when it comes to death, but young people dying usually has a cause that can be found upon autopsy...a bad ticker, a drug overdose, a aneurysm, etc.
As for old people dying at relatively similar ages, that's a fine question. I think there's something to be said for the will to survive. Nutrition could have an effect...if you're grieving and not eating, your body suffers. Stress has been shown to have a profound impact on the immune system, mainly through the release of corticosteroids that inhibit immune function, not to mention that the immune system generally fades with age as it is.
As for a dead body having no means to acquire energy...it doesn't. If you picked up a dead body from the coroner and hooked it up to any kind of medical device you can think of, pump it full of IV fluids, shock the hell out of it, you won't get it back to life...within reason. A person that's had a heart attack and has their heart stop beating for a moment or a few moments, or maybe even half an hour may be able to get their heart beating with a good shock, but if the brain dies, there's no way of bringing it back...the brain has to function to keep the heart and everything else going. Once the brain is dead, machines can make the heart beat and the lungs pump...as long as they get a continual supply of nutrients and oxygen, they'll keep going for awhile...but are you alive if you're brain dead?
And in that case, the body is not providing nourishment for itself, someone else is doing it.
I don't see how you can make the case that a dead body can acquire energy...food that is.
But that comes down to the definition of dead and alive? Is alive really alive if a machine pumps your heart and your lungs, and not your brain?
So, dead, to me would be absence of brain activity.
But overall, once you're born, you're dying. Your body is degrading. Some happen faster than others. Some contract a disease that makes it go faster than others.
I would think that would be entropy there...the general trend towards disorder.
MTVike
03-30-2007, 07:29 PM
You've got life licked.
Now can you help explain consciousness and self-awareness?
Thanks!
You've got life licked.
Now can you help explain consciousness and self-awareness?
Thanks!
I've told you before...psych ain't my bag. Might as well be talking the beginnings of the universe.
MTVike
03-30-2007, 07:48 PM
I've told you before...psych ain't my bag. Might as well be talking the beginnings of the universe.
I'm being facetious, of course. I am duly impressed the knowledge base you bring to the table on this discussion. Vegas too, what the hell, I thought he was an electrical engineer, what's he doing talking about DNA? Smart fellars.
Neuropsychology is just beginning to be able to map and localize brain functions. At least those that can be localized. Many higher order processes are integrated throughout the brain.
They're still trying to split atoms with a sledgehammer, though. Something about the whole being more than the sum of its parts.
I'm being facetious, of course. I am duly impressed the knowledge base you bring to the table on this discussion. Vegas too, what the hell, I thought he was an electrical engineer, what's he doing talking about DNA? Smart fellars.
Neuropsychology is just beginning to be able to map and localize brain functions. At least those that can be localized. Many higher order processes are integrated throughout the brain.
They're still trying to split atoms with a sledgehammer, though. Something about the whole being more than the sum of its parts.
Hmm...yes. It would be interesting to live another 200 years to find out what we don't know about what we think we know. And then 200 years beyond that...
Mindblowing.
I think my new creed...or motto...maybe a credo...will be "you don't know what you know until you know what you don't know."
Or maybe that's just corny.
MTVike
03-30-2007, 08:04 PM
Hmm...yes. It would be interesting to live another 200 years to find out what we don't know about what we think we know. And then 200 years beyond that...
Mindblowing.
I think my new creed...or motto...maybe a credo...will be "you don't know what you know until you know what you don't know."
Or maybe that's just corny.
I think what you say is true. More wisdom and knowledge should make you more humble, rather than arrogant.
Knowing is one thing, being is another.
We're still mostly slaves to our reptilian brains. Look at our "modern" age...how advanced we think we are. But people are still drawn to sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Or to the people that show it to us the best.
Consider methamphetamine. Experts say just one use can make most people hopelessly addicted...that they've never experienced physical pleasure that compares. Actually changes the pleasure centers of the brain, nothing else comes close to the exprience.
Free will and the philosophy around that is intriguing in these matters.
swordfish
03-30-2007, 08:07 PM
[QUOTE=swordfish;1406]
You absolutely did mention wobble...you didn't expressly call it "wobble" but you certainly brought it up. The wobble hypothesis is basically that the 3rd position in a codon is relatively unimportant in some aspects, and that's why more than one codon can code for a particular amino acid.
What you're describing above is definitely wobble.
http://big.mcw.edu/display.php/1554.html
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/BioEllipse/courses/biol114/Chap05/Chapter05.html
But that isn't the type of mutation I'm talking about. I've explained it at least twice.
So this does or does not happen?
I think what you say is true. More wisdom and knowledge should make you more humble, rather than arrogant.
Knowing is one thing, being is another.
We're still mostly slaves to our reptilian brains. Look at our "modern" age...how advanced we think we are. But people are still drawn to sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Or to the people that show it to us the best.
Consider methamphetamine. Experts say just one use can make most people hopelessly addicted...that they've never experienced physical pleasure that compares. Actually changes the pleasure centers of the brain, nothing else comes close to the exprience.
Free will and the philosophy around that is intriguing in these matters.
My first adviser relayed to me that nobody knows everything. Nobody ever will. And as soon as one thinks they can know everything, they've lost the ability to learn anything new. That was good advice. Of course, he was a complete tool otherwise. But that part was good.
And that's one reason I've stuck to bacteria...so much simpler. All the eukaryotic stuff...2 sets of genes, umpteen chromosomes, neurons, organs, etc...I can't get my head around it most of the time.
I don't think the stuff I've covered is all that complex...it may seem that way to some that are in other fields, but there's really not that much to it...generally speaking. If you or anyone else spent 12 years studying biology, it wouldn't seem like a big thing...it's all relative...like the psych stuff...you've spent time with it, I haven't. It blows me away. It's second nature to you.
Just time...it's all it takes.
And with my great tutorials that I found regarding translation for Vegas...he should be wowing everyone with that knowledge in no time.
But really, that's just a bunch of rambling with no real point in mind.
[QUOTE=LSU;1408]
So this does or does not happen?
What? Wobble? Yes, that happens. But so does the other type of mutation I've talked about, i.e., a mutation that occurs in the first or second base of the codon that leads to a completely different amino acid insertion. The results of said insertion are threefold. 1) non-functional protein 2) functional protein 3) better functioning protein.
All depends if/how it affects the protein folding and active sites of the protein.
swordfish
03-30-2007, 08:21 PM
But isn't a structure with 2 molecules more ordered or complex than a structure with just one?? Disorder is disorder, is it not? Or is it in this case that a more complex structure is actually more disordered?
That opens up a whole new conversation if so...
Regardless of the size, if the compound was stable, it wouldn't be subject to entropy?
Entropy doesn't really mean disorder. I look at it more as balance. It is more about the energy state of the system. If you have molecules that are highly reactive they will bond together until the energy of the system is balanced. An Oxygen atom alone will have 2 extra electrons and thus a potential charge. O2 double bonds fill the O orbitals making the molecule less reactive.
Molecules form covalent bonds due to differences in potential charge. A more structured molecule can be more stable if the bonds are stronger and required more energy to create. Thats my problem with DNA, RNA, and proteins. They are not very stable. Waste substances like urea are much more stable.
Without an input of energy the more stable molecules will prevail. Since every reaction does not reach 100% you still have some ions floating around attacking bonds of more stable things but overall stability rules.
Entropy doesn't really mean disorder. I look at it more as balance. It is more about the energy state of the system. If you have molecules that are highly reactive they will bond together until the energy of the system is balanced. An Oxygen atom alone will have 2 extra electrons and thus a potential charge. O2 double bonds fill the O orbitals making the molecule less reactive.
Molecules form covalent bonds due to differences in potential charge. A more structured molecule can be more stable if the bonds are stronger and required more energy to create. Thats my problem with DNA, RNA, and proteins. They are not very stable. Waste substances like urea are much more stable.
Without an input of energy the more stable molecules will prevail. Since every reaction does not reach 100% you still have some ions floating around attacking bonds of more stable things but overall stability rules.
I thought ionic bonds formed from differences in charge? Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I haven't had basic chem in over a decade...
What properties of DNA, RNA, and proteins make them not stable? For DNA and RNA, there are phosphodiester bonds...for proteins it's peptide bonds...how do those bonds rate in strength relative to urea? The breakdown product of urea is ammonia and carbon dioxide...I can't think of what type of bond that is, though...
But basically what you're saying is that order really doesn't matter with entropy, it's the energy, right?
And in terms of an input of energy, that's one of the arguments I've made all along. As long as an organism has the ability to maintain it's energy consumption (photosynthesis for plants and algae, eating for other organisms), they can overcome the trend towards disorder because of the energy they're taking in to maintain the bonds and the larger molecules.
But, if proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, etc are so unstable and so easily broken down, why are digestive enzymes needed in the body? If the molecules are so unstable, why aren't they just readily absorbed in the intestines without digestive enzymes? An enzyme lowers the activation energy needed to catalyze a reaction if I remember correctly, no? Why would you need to lower an activation energy if not much energy is required to digest materials?
Vegas
03-30-2007, 08:30 PM
Vegas, when you have a chance, what exactly are the scientific reasons for Creation?
Let's start with the most proven and accepted laws in all of science, which are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. These fit perfectly with the creation model. All of the energy and matter in the universe were abruptly created. The universe could not have created itself and it has to have a finite age. It it existed forever, it would have run down long ago. Also the universe is ordered and structured.
The ecosystem also has definite signs of design. Plants and animals cannot exist without the other for instance and thus had to appear rapidly or the whole thing would collapse. Functioning systems don't happen by accident or by natural processes. If you see a clock winding down, you know that it was once wound up.
Once again, my ride is here and I get interrupted. I will write more later.
Vegas
03-30-2007, 08:33 PM
Entropy doesn't really mean disorder. I look at it more as balance. It is more about the energy state of the system.
I disagree completely. Entropy does indeed mean disorder. By balance to you mean lack of disorder? And what do you mean by energy state?
swordfish
03-30-2007, 08:55 PM
I disagree completely. Entropy does indeed mean disorder. By balance to you mean lack of disorder? And what do you mean by energy state?
LSU uses disorder to suppose that all molecules will eventually degrade into ions. This is not the case. O2 is more stable than 0--. Two Oxygen molecules double bonded is more complex than one alone. The more complex molecule has a lower energy state. This means it will require energy to break the bonds.
If you have an ice cube the heat from the system will balance with the stronger bonds formed by the water. Eventually both objects will be at the same energy level. The system temperature will be lower, but the water will not be solid anymore.
Let's start with the most proven and accepted laws in all of science, which are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. These fit perfectly with the creation model. All of the energy and matter in the universe were abruptly created. The universe could not have created itself and it has to have a finite age. It it existed forever, it would have run down long ago. Also the universe is ordered and structured.
The ecosystem also has definite signs of design. Plants and animals cannot exist without the other for instance and thus had to appear rapidly or the whole thing would collapse. Functioning systems don't happen by accident or by natural processes. If you see a clock winding down, you know that it was once wound up.
Once again, my ride is here and I get interrupted. I will write more later.
I disagree that plants couldn't live without animals. Plants need light and carbon dioxide. While animals exhale CO2, so do bacteria...and volcanoes...
The main problem I have with your argument, at least this one is your use of absolutes...cannots and has tos.
And the laws of thermodynamics...while I'm not going to argue they're wrong, but they're limited. Limited by man's knowledge. They're based on what man knows and what man can explain. Outside of the world, there's little man knows, and even within the world, there's little that man knows. And while I know you say there has never been anything that goes against the laws, that's also limited to what man knows.
It's a completely theoretical or philosophical argument, I know.
Those things fit the Creation model? So when God made the Universe, everything was made at once? What happened to 7 days? Or 6...I don't remember...
And you're assertion that if the universe existed forever, the system would've rundown already...what is forever? In the realm of time, we're again limited to what we designate as a long time...24 hours is a lifetime for a dragonfly...what it it think of 24 days? That also assumes that there isn't enough energy in the universe to last forever.
I just have a hard time imagining the laws that we've designated for our world and our time are absolute throughout the universe, especially considering how little we know of the universe.
We're completely limited by what we don't know.
LSU uses disorder to suppose that all molecules will eventually degrade into ions. This is not the case. O2 is more stable than 0--. Two Oxygen molecules double bonded is more complex than one alone. The more complex molecule has a lower energy state. This means it will require energy to break the bonds.
If you have an ice cube the heat from the system will balance with the stronger bonds formed by the water. Eventually both objects will be at the same energy level. The system temperature will be lower, but the water will not be solid anymore.
Will water eventually cease to be and become only hydrogen and oxygen?
swordfish
03-30-2007, 09:30 PM
I thought ionic bonds formed from differences in charge? Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I haven't had basic chem in over a decade...
What properties of DNA, RNA, and proteins make them not stable? For DNA and RNA, there are phosphodiester bonds...for proteins it's peptide bonds...how do those bonds rate in strength relative to urea? The breakdown product of urea is ammonia and carbon dioxide...I can't think of what type of bond that is, though...
But basically what you're saying is that order really doesn't matter with entropy, it's the energy, right?
And in terms of an input of energy, that's one of the arguments I've made all along. As long as an organism has the ability to maintain it's energy consumption (photosynthesis for plants and algae, eating for other organisms), they can overcome the trend towards disorder because of the energy they're taking in to maintain the bonds and the larger molecules.
But, if proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, etc are so unstable and so easily broken down, why are digestive enzymes needed in the body? If the molecules are so unstable, why aren't they just readily absorbed in the intestines without digestive enzymes? An enzyme lowers the activation energy needed to catalyze a reaction if I remember correctly, no? Why would you need to lower an activation energy if not much energy is required to digest materials?
Your right about ionic bonds.
Covalent bonds share electron density. Ionic bonds are formed when an atom takes the density from another atom. Ionic bonds are much weaker and do not have fixed geometry. It is not so much about positive and negative, but the potential to fill the available orbitals. This is why 2 negative oxygen molecules will bond to form a 0 charge molecule. Obviously -2 + -2 is -4 but this is not how it works.
I do not remember much about phosphodiester bonds but I thought they are esters of phosphoric acid. P is a highly electronegative molecule and will attack binding sites of weaker molecules. I will look into this more.
NH4 and H20 are highly stable molecules. This is due to the hydrogen proton sharing the electron density of the bigger molecule.
Im saying that more complex molecules can have a net charge of 0, being more stable than ions with a potential charge. The order is the energy level not the complexity of the molecule. Water is more stable than Hydrogen and Oxygen.
The higher the energy state of a system, the more probability to have molecules like free radicals and isotopes. Radiation quickly destroys DNA which is why UV light is so bad.
Enzymes are not always necessary for a reaction to take place. As you say they lower the activation energy making an easier pathway for the reaction products. The proteins are specialized to make life possible. Without the enzymes required most reactions would be too slow to support life functions.
I'm not saying that DNA, RNA and proteins have very weak bonds. They can sustain some temperature and other conditions. It is the complexity of the molecule that would be needed for the first replication. Prokaryotic cells have circular DNA. Without the bonds the DNA will unravel and denature rapidly. How did the extra nucleotides insert themselves without spontaneous destruction of the molecule.
GF wants food, im getting kicked off the computer.
swordfish
03-30-2007, 09:42 PM
My fault ammonia is NH3 and apparently has strong ionic character. I am still rusty. Ammonia rapidly dissolves in water. Nitrogen was never my strong suit.
swordfish
03-30-2007, 10:42 PM
My fault ammonia is NH3 and apparently has strong ionic character. I am still rusty. Ammonia rapidly dissolves in water. Nitrogen was never my strong suit.
Ammonia would ionize in water and the free protons will attack bond sites. Eventually im guessing the Nitrogen will bond to itself to form a diatomic gas. The atmosphere is composed of 78% N gas. The triple bond in N2 gas appears to be the strongest in nature.
I suppose it is when the Ammonia is bound by another molecule that it achieves stability, such as in NH4Cl which is a salt.
I'm not saying that DNA, RNA and proteins have very weak bonds. They can sustain some temperature and other conditions. It is the complexity of the molecule that would be needed for the first replication. Prokaryotic cells have circular DNA. Without the bonds the DNA will unravel and denature rapidly. How did the extra nucleotides insert themselves without spontaneous destruction of the molecule.
GF wants food, im getting kicked off the computer.
I agree with all or most of the other stuff in your post, but some of the above, I'm not so sure about.
Yes, some prokaryotic cells have circular DNA...actually most do. I say most because I think some may have linear genomes, Borrellia specifically, but I might just be thinking about linear plasmids.
I think you're confusing DNA denaturation and complete digestion of the DNA. DNA is very stable, in terms of the phosphodiester bonds. That's what holds the DNA chains together. The only way I know of breaking these bonds is with shearing or restriction endonucleases. Now, to denaturation of DNA. DNA is double stranded, and the two strands are held together by hydrogen bonds. When you heat DNA to a particular temp (the temp needed to separate depends on the number of nucleotides in the strand), the two strands separate, forming two strands. That is what is considered denaturation, not the breaking off of nucleotides. Of course, since the binding of the two strands is specific (G:C, A:T), the strands can re-anneal once the temperature lowers to the point of allowing such thing...and of course, different DNAs will have different temperatures at which they separate. Thinking about Thermus aquaticus which lives in geothermal vents, it's DNA can withstand very very high temperatures...so it depends on the species.
As for extra nucleotides inserting themselves, look up transposons, plasmids, conjugation, and bacterial competence.
My fault ammonia is NH3 and apparently has strong ionic character. I am still rusty. Ammonia rapidly dissolves in water. Nitrogen was never my strong suit.
Ammonia is NH3, but depending on temp and pH, it will be NH4+ and more ionic. NH3 has no charge, so is not ionic...it's present in water at higher temps and higher pH levels. Of course, what really happens is that it's constantly switching between NH3 + H+ and NH4+...just like water will switch from 2H20 to H30+ + OH-...
Ammonia would ionize in water and the free protons will attack bond sites. Eventually im guessing the Nitrogen will bond to itself to form a diatomic gas. The atmosphere is composed of 78% N gas. The triple bond in N2 gas appears to be the strongest in nature.
I suppose it is when the Ammonia is bound by another molecule that it achieves stability, such as in NH4Cl which is a salt.
I think you're confusing some things. NH3 is not ionic. NH4+ is. In water, pH and temp determine whether is more NH3 or more NH4+. N2 is a pretty strong bond from what I remember, but I don't remember why.
Ammonia won't bind to another molecule (NH3)...but it can attack a carbon and from a amino group (NH2), which is what urea is...carbon double bonded to oxygen and two amino groups attached to the carbon...as for NH4Cl, that's ammonium chloride...in which ammonium is the ion, and that would be present in lower temps and lower pH...
Keep in mind low pH means high hydrogen ion (H+) concentration, and that H+ will attack attack attack...
Of course when you mix an acid (HCl for instance) and a base (NaOH for instance), you get H2O and NaCl in solution...
Vegas
03-31-2007, 12:12 AM
I disagree that plants couldn't live without animals. Plants need light and carbon dioxide. While animals exhale CO2, so do bacteria...and volcanoes...
The main problem I have with your argument, at least this one is your use of absolutes...cannots and has tos.
And the laws of thermodynamics...while I'm not going to argue they're wrong, but they're limited. Limited by man's knowledge. They're based on what man knows and what man can explain. Outside of the world, there's little man knows, and even within the world, there's little that man knows. And while I know you say there has never been anything that goes against the laws, that's also limited to what man knows.
It's a completely theoretical or philosophical argument, I know.
Those things fit the Creation model? So when God made the Universe, everything was made at once? What happened to 7 days? Or 6...I don't remember...
And you're assertion that if the universe existed forever, the system would've rundown already...what is forever? In the realm of time, we're again limited to what we designate as a long time...24 hours is a lifetime for a dragonfly...what it it think of 24 days? That also assumes that there isn't enough energy in the universe to last forever.
I just have a hard time imagining the laws that we've designated for our world and our time are absolute throughout the universe, especially considering how little we know of the universe.
We're completely limited by what we don't know.
It sounds to me like you're reinforcing my points. We cannot explain the world we see based on the laws of science that we observe. This gets back to the post I made yesterday:
Evolutionists say that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. When the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of something, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation?
It sounds to me like you're reinforcing my points. We cannot explain the world we see based on the laws of science that we observe. This gets back to the post I made yesterday:
But if that's the case, then the laws of thermodynamics cannot be used to prove something wrong...but not being able to explain it based on what we know now does not point to divinity...well, not solely to divinity...it also points to the fact that we may just not know the answer...yet...
Here's info on peptide and phosphodiester bonds. They don't necessarily sound "weak", but it is wiki, so take it for what it's worth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphodiester_bond
Also, in regards to DNA and UV light, how does UV light denature or degrade DNA?
swordfish
03-31-2007, 01:18 AM
my text says this about radiation
pg 1284
Two types of radiation are especially dangerous because they can modify DNA; ultraviolet radiation and the ionizing radiations (x-rays and atomic particles). UV radiation of the appropriate wavelength can be absorbed by the DNA bases and can produce chemical changes in them. The most common damage is the production of dimers between adjacent pyrimidine residues in one strand of DNA. These dimers interfere with both transcription and replication of DNA. Ionizing radiation mainly causes breaks in DNA chains. Both types of radiation can cause cancer in animals and can transform cells in culture. The ability of ionizing radiation to cause human cancer, especially leukemia, was dramatically shown by the increased rates of leukemia among survivors of the atomic bombs dropped in World War II.
UV radiation has been widely used in research on mutations and cancer because it is an easily manipulable and measurable agent that directly damages DNA. However, the UV-induced DNA lesions, including the dimers, are probably not primary consequences of the radiation. This has has been shown directly in bacteria with a defective recA, a gene involved in DNA repair. Mutants which lack recA's product are easily killed by UV radiation because DNA repair is prevented; there are virtually no mutants among the survivors. This result indicates that the mutational effect of UV radiation is caused during repair and not as a primary consequence of the radiation.
There is a whole section about the negative effects of radiation on DNA.
my text says this about radiation
pg 1284
Two types of radiation are especially dangerous because they can modify DNA; ultraviolet radiation and the ionizing radiations (x-rays and atomic particles). UV radiation of the appropriate wavelength can be absorbed by the DNA bases and can produce chemical changes in them. The most common damage is the production of dimers between adjacent pyrimidine residues in one strand of DNA. These dimers interfere with both transcription and replication of DNA. Ionizing radiation mainly causes breaks in DNA chains. Both types of radiation can cause cancer in animals and can transform cells in culture. The ability of ionizing radiation to cause human cancer, especially leukemia, was dramatically shown by the increased rates of leukemia among survivors of the atomic bombs dropped in World War II.
UV radiation has been widely used in research on mutations and cancer because it is an easily manipulable and measurable agent that directly damages DNA. However, the UV-induced DNA lesions, including the dimers, are probably not primary consequences of the radiation. This has has been shown directly in bacteria with a defective recA, a gene involved in DNA repair. Mutants which lack recA's product are easily killed by UV radiation because DNA repair is prevented; there are virtually no mutants among the survivors. This result indicates that the mutational effect of UV radiation is caused during repair and not as a primary consequence of the radiation.
There is a whole section about the negative effects of radiation on DNA.
OK, I didn't know that about ionizing radiation, but I did know that about UV light and the dimers...it doesn't necessarily destroy the DNA change, but it does pose a problem with replication. I think the most common were thymine dimers (but that's only when they're right next to each other)...but I think cytosine can also dimer to itself as well as cytosine dimer to thymine. Basically what happens is the polymerase sees the two bases as one and only inserts one base, so you get a shift in the reading frame, which could cause a serious mutation. However, in some cases, a mutation is beneficial, but I think in most cases it's harmful. But not necessarily destructive to the strand...the ionizing radiation is another story.
What has developed in all organisms from bacteria on up are pretty good repair mechanisms (RecA is mentioned), but I doubt early organism had this developed, so they probably succumbed to some UV problems...
Not sure what the UV situation was like way back when, if the ozone layer was formed yet to filter some out or what...also depends on the clarity of the fluid all this occurred in...if it is pretty opaque, UV light doesn't penetrate too far.
swordfish
03-31-2007, 01:28 AM
I think you're confusing some things. NH3 is not ionic. NH4+ is. In water, pH and temp determine whether is more NH3 or more NH4+. N2 is a pretty strong bond from what I remember, but I don't remember why.
Ammonia won't bind to another molecule (NH3)...but it can attack a carbon and from a amino group (NH2), which is what urea is...carbon double bonded to oxygen and two amino groups attached to the carbon...as for NH4Cl, that's ammonium chloride...in which ammonium is the ion, and that would be present in lower temps and lower pH...
Keep in mind low pH means high hydrogen ion (H+) concentration, and that H+ will attack attack attack...
Of course when you mix an acid (HCl for instance) and a base (NaOH for instance), you get H2O and NaCl in solution...
So you agree the products of urea are mostly stable?
I understand about mixing protons and proton acceptors to balance the energy forming water and salt. Its another example of entropy.
So you agree the products of urea are mostly stable?
I understand about mixing protons and proton acceptors to balance the energy forming water and salt. Its another example of entropy.
The products of the breakdown of urea are stable? Absolutely.
And I agree with your assessment of how entropy works...seeking stable energy levels, and not with Vegas' assertion of complete disorder. That's how I remember it from chemistry, I think...
But as I've said, physics is not my gig, and it's been a long time since chemistry.
The thing that I look at is the fact that it's "thermodynamics"...inferring heat...and energy, not so much structure. So, in the event of complete equilibrium, it wouldn't necessarily mean everything is elemental, but everything exists in a state of no energy flow...
If you mix hot and cold water, there will be water molecules moving really really fast and molecules moving really really slow. The fast molecules will collide with the slow ones, thus moving the slow ones a little fast from the energy transfer and slowing down the fast ones because of loss of energy. This will continue until all molecules are moving at a relatively equal level...and that level is determined by the ambient temperature...thus, the energy is balanced out and no longer concentrated or ordered...entropy.
Again, that's just my understanding from the few things I've read about entropy on the net...it wouldn't get to the point where the water molecules had to dissociate to H2 and O2 before equilibrium...just the energy contained in the exited state of the hot water molecules would spread (become less energetic, less ordered) to the cold water molecules until equilibrium.
Is this completely wrong in your opinion? This is for Swordfish or Vegas, or anyone else that wants to chime in...
I've done some reading on some stuff by a fella named Frank Lambert, a chemist that has done a lot of writing (at least on the internet) regarding entropy and the second law...he's professor emeritus at occidental college...here's more info (http://www.entropysimple.com/cv.htm) on him.
He wrote a very readable piece on the 2nd law and entropy and how it's commonly misinterpreted (http://www.entropysimple.com/content.htm)by people. Now, this is one guy, I realize, and I really can't check his credentials, so he could be a fruit...but what is said doesn't sound like he's just making it up out of nowhere...here's his page (http://departments.oxy.edu/chemistry/enthropy.htm)at Occidental...it doesn't seem to work in Mozilla, only IE...
Anyway, he gives a good essay (http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html)about evolution and how creationists FALSELY use the 2nd law and entropy to say evolution couldn't happen...
He has a whole series of websites geared at explaining the 2nd law and entropy to everyday people on up to chemistry and physics students...
www.shakespeare2ndlaw.com for beginners
www.entropysite.com for educators
www.2ndlaw.com and www.secondlaw.com for students.
Now, he's got some credentials backing him, not just some PhD student wondering how things work...I'm sure there are other qualified individuals that would give him a good argument, and he'd give them back one.
At the very least, we should say that we have our beliefs about what science backs our thoughts, but even the scientists themselves are in disagreement about what entropy is and what the 2nd law governs, and how it works in the world.
No?
Here's another fella with similar views...Harold Morowitz (http://www.gmu.edu/robinson/morowitz.htm)
He wrote this (http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm)...
And just to show the other side of the story for those interested, here is a list of scientists at The Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/)...
If anyone's interested, I found court transcripts of the AR school board case involving teaching of evolution/creationism in AR...
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/index.htm
swordfish
03-31-2007, 08:32 PM
http://www.1729.com/evolution/2ndlaw.html
http://www.1729.com/evolution/2ndlaw.html
I've read that page before.
The one thing that gets me is this:
"Stated in the form that entropy never decreases, the second law only applies to closed systems. It is often observed that life evolves in a world that is not a closed system, so that the second law does not apply. However a rigorous analysis should demand that we determine that it is not even possible in principle for evolution by natural selection to break the second law."
So how would evolution or natural selection break the 2nd law if the 2nd law does not apply?
I would also disagree with this statement:
"(It is a slight simplification to consider only point mutations, but this does not affect the logic of the discussion.)"
That's not a slight simplification. A point mutation is a change in a base. That's it. It doesn't include insertions, deletions, or inversions.
"Whether or not real-world mutations occur by reversible processes, it is certainly possible in principle for mutations to be reversible, and there is no requirement in the theory of evolution for them not to be so."
Mutations are certainly reversible...there's no "possibility in principle" about it...
I don't agree with this statement:
"Reversible point mutations are like the motions of individual molecules through the small door, and natural selection is like the demon that keeps the changes that move towards decreased entropy and throws away (or prevents) those that result in increased entropy."
The movement of the particles in Maxwell's Demon refers to allowing more energetic molecules in and keeping less energetic molecules out. A switch of a base pair is not energetic. It's not producing a more or less ordered sequence.
"And it must be impossible for natural selection to break the second law of thermodynamics in the large for the same reason that Maxwell's demon cannot do so: because the selection process cannot be effective if it does not occur by irreversible processes."
But selection can be reversible...or rather the mutations are reversible...
I believe this to be bad logic or a misrepresentation of what would happen:
"Well, those mutations that died less often would also un-die less often (i.e. the dead would come to life), and those mutations that reproduced more efficiently would also un-reproduce more efficiently (i.e. babies would crawl back into their mothers' wombs and un-grow back into embryos, which would finally unfertilise back into separate eggs and sperm)."
Evolution is the property of a species not an individual...natural selection is the increase in the frequency of alleles in a population, not the fitness of an individual. The author puts this on an individual level rather than on a population. And in a population, the reverse of increasing the population is decreasing the population...and the reverse of decreasing the population is increasing the population. So if this logic is followed, if an advantageous mutation occurs and is passed on (this is the important part), the population may increase in the environment. Now, if the mutation reverts to the original (or the original in this context) and is passed on it can cause a decreased fitness in the environment. The author's assertion of providing an example on an individual basis is not fully understanding the theory. Also, the author uses one example of birth and the reverse (unbirth) and death and the reverse (undeath). It's not birth and death we talk about...it's survival and not surviving (reverses of each other).
"as the eventual result of point mutations would be to completely randomise the genomes being mutated."
Potentially. But the polymerases that copy the DNA are relatively high fidelity, and even if they're not, even the lowest self-reproducing organisms (bacteria) have strong methods of keeping their mutations to a minimum (not completely failsafe, but pretty good...).
But all that really doesn't matter because entropy is only relevant in a closed system, which the Earth is not.
swordfish
04-01-2007, 10:20 AM
I've read that page before.
Evolution is the property of a species not an individual...natural selection is the increase in the frequency of alleles in a population, not the fitness of an individual. The author puts this on an individual level rather than on a population. And in a population, the reverse of increasing the population is decreasing the population...and the reverse of decreasing the population is increasing the population. So if this logic is followed, if an advantageous mutation occurs and is passed on (this is the important part), the population may increase in the environment. Now, if the mutation reverts to the original (or the original in this context) and is passed on it can cause a decreased fitness in the environment. The author's assertion of providing an example on an individual basis is not fully understanding the theory. Also, the author uses one example of birth and the reverse (unbirth) and death and the reverse (undeath). It's not birth and death we talk about...it's survival and not surviving (reverses of each other).
"as the eventual result of point mutations would be to completely randomise the genomes being mutated."
Potentially. But the polymerases that copy the DNA are relatively high fidelity, and even if they're not, even the lowest self-reproducing organisms (bacteria) have strong methods of keeping their mutations to a minimum (not completely failsafe, but pretty good...).
But all that really doesn't matter because entropy is only relevant in a closed system, which the Earth is not.
I also do not agree with some of his assertions. I just thought it was interesting that he says small entropy decreases can occur in a closed system. When I think of a reaction, I know it cannot achieve 100%. Bonds are breaking and forming in small amounts even after the reaction is complete.
I realize that entropy involves closed systems which the earth is not. In fact few systems are "closed" which should totally debunk entropy on a macroscale. The universe could be the only total closed system.
Evolution would occur in one individual and propagate a new species. Natural selection works by breeding stronger alleles. The stronger gene naturally has benefits and procreates easier. The new gene may fit a better niche and not take as many resources from the older one. This is what Darwin noticed with the different birds of the same species. This could easily be compared to a more fit individual breeding and surviving with more ease. Unless you suppose that every individual of a species spontaneously evolves.
The fidelity of polymerase just points more towards creation. All these highly specific molecules are required to keep mutations down.
Vegas
04-01-2007, 10:56 AM
Entropy increases in both open and closed systems. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. As a matter of fact, entropy increases faster in an open system. There is a straightforward equation for increase of entropy in an open system, which I will post when I figure out how to do symbolics here. I can't now, because I need to get ready for church.
swordfish
04-01-2007, 11:33 AM
Entropy increases in both open and closed systems. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. As a matter of fact, entropy increases faster in an open system. There is a straightforward equation for increase of entropy in an open system, which I will post when I figure out how to do symbolics here. I can't now, because I need to get ready for church.
I never argued against this. I am just proposing that small decreases can occur in molecules but that overall the entropy does increase.
Evolution would occur in one individual and propagate a new species. Natural selection works by breeding stronger alleles. The stronger gene naturally has benefits and procreates easier. The new gene may fit a better niche and not take as many resources from the older one. This is what Darwin noticed with the different birds of the same species. This could easily be compared to a more fit individual breeding and surviving with more ease. Unless you suppose that every individual of a species spontaneously evolves.
The fidelity of polymerase just points more towards creation. All these highly specific molecules are required to keep mutations down.
Evolution does NOT occur in one individual. A mutation occurs in one individual. If that mutation is advantageous for the current environment the organism is living in, that trait has a higher chance of being passed on. Of course, if for some reason said individual dies before it breeds, that advantageous mutation is lost. The trait has to be an advantage over the other traits...enough so that it survives when others may not. If you looked at your DNA and compared it to mine, there would be large numbers of differences. In the world today, that may not account for you or I having a better advantage than the other. It's all relative to the environment.
Not every individual evolves. An organism with a mutation passes on the mutation (the mutation MUST occur in the gametes, not somatic cells to be passed on, thus, radiation damage to skin cells does not get passed on). That next generation has not mutated, but it carries the mutation of the parent...the next generation also has not mutated, but it carries the different allele...those next generations aren't mutating.
Evolution is NOT about the individual, it's about the species.
Now, your comment regarding the fidelity. Those proteins and systems have evolved as well. Compare mutation rates in vertebrates to those in bacteria. They're lower. Not to mention that higher organisms (higher than bacteria) have 2 copies of every gene. Therefore, if one mutates, you still have the other functioning (the two would not mutate simultaneously most likely).
Lower fidelity polymerases could be the very reason why there are many species today...mutations.
But that's all relative to the mutation rate and how fast the organism replicates. E. coli will replicate exponentially every 20 minutes. 1 becomes 2 becomes 4 becomes 16 becomes 32 becomes 64, etc. Now, if the mutation rate asserts that the every 4th generation could have a mutation, well, that's 1 out of 32 that could have a mutation. If that mutant doesn't work out, there's still 31 others to carry on. If the mutation is adaptive, that 1 might replicate faster and better, and compete better in the environment, and soon after that strain would be the dominant one...
Entropy increases in both open and closed systems. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. As a matter of fact, entropy increases faster in an open system. There is a straightforward equation for increase of entropy in an open system, which I will post when I figure out how to do symbolics here. I can't now, because I need to get ready for church.
Considering that my basic argument says that life and evolution can follow the rules of entropy and that I don't believe anyone person can say for sure whether or not the universe is opened or close...and my lack of firsthand physics knowledge, I won't argue...strongly at least.
In an open system, there if free movement of energy and matter, no? So if the energy of a system can increase (energy flowing in), and energy can be used to maintain (order), then why can't an open system decrease in entropy? If the energy source (sun) disappeared, then logically, the energy of the Earth would decrease, and I would agree entropy would increase...no light mean no plants. No plants means no food for the food chain and no oxygen. No food and no oxygen means no life (at least for humans and other verterbrates), thus they all die and decompose...a great example of entropy. But that's only when the energy ceases to flow in. If energy continues on in, plants grow, producing food for animals, and oxygen for respiration, and the process towards disorder is held off.
That argument has been mine since nearly the beginning of our discussion. As long as we have a means to obtain energy and maintain our bodies, we're (us as individuals) are maintaining order. However, that's relative because what happens to the world around us? If we eat a plant or meat or whatever, do we use 100% of that energy? Absolutely not. No system is 100% energy efficient, so some of that energy is lost in our waste products and in the heat lost during reactions in our body. The best estimation of photosynthetic efficiency is 30%. That means 70% of the energy available is not converted to glucose, so really most of the energy is lost...or disordered. That obviously follows the 2nd law and entropy.
If you're going to talk about a system, you need to look at the entire system. In order for us to live, we need food. How do we get food? By causing disorder of our food items...
swordfish
04-01-2007, 12:52 PM
Evolution does NOT occur in one individual. A mutation occurs in one individual. If that mutation is advantageous for the current environment the organism is living in, that trait has a higher chance of being passed on. Of course, if for some reason said individual dies before it breeds, that advantageous mutation is lost. The trait has to be an advantage over the other traits...enough so that it survives when others may not. If you looked at your DNA and compared it to mine, there would be large numbers of differences. In the world today, that may not account for you or I having a better advantage than the other. It's all relative to the environment.
Not every individual evolves. An organism with a mutation passes on the mutation (the mutation MUST occur in the gametes, not somatic cells to be passed on, thus, radiation damage to skin cells does not get passed on). That next generation has not mutated, but it carries the mutation of the parent...the next generation also has not mutated, but it carries the different allele...those next generations aren't mutating.
Evolution is NOT about the individual, it's about the species.
Now, your comment regarding the fidelity. Those proteins and systems have evolved as well. Compare mutation rates in vertebrates to those in bacteria. They're lower. Not to mention that higher organisms (higher than bacteria) have 2 copies of every gene. Therefore, if one mutates, you still have the other functioning (the two would not mutate simultaneously most likely).
Lower fidelity polymerases could be the very reason why there are many species today...mutations.
But that's all relative to the mutation rate and how fast the organism replicates. E. coli will replicate exponentially every 20 minutes. 1 becomes 2 becomes 4 becomes 16 becomes 32 becomes 64, etc. Now, if the mutation rate asserts that the every 4th generation could have a mutation, well, that's 1 out of 32 that could have a mutation. If that mutant doesn't work out, there's still 31 others to carry on. If the mutation is adaptive, that 1 might replicate faster and better, and compete better in the environment, and soon after that strain would be the dominant one...
I will concur that two mutants of the same species can procreate to form a stronger allele. These mutations are still individual instances. Where do you draw the line for a species? The ability to evolve is created inside the code. I think species can only evolve so far. There is a reason you do not see cats driving cars. Or can we conclude that the Planet of the Apes is not that far in the future(say 1 million years).
The world we have created today with technology is nothing like the real natural world. There is a big probability in our welfare state for many bad traits to be passed on. In nature bad traits mean that your a snack for a bigger creature.
I would argue that skin cancer is proof that radiation damage is passed on. The cell is damaged and replicates creating another damaged cell that does not have its normal function. The damaged cells that replicate do not mutate, but carry on the damaged chromosomes of the original mutant.
Replicating every 20 minutes is mind boggling.
I will concur that two mutants of the same species can procreate to form a stronger allele. These mutations are still individual instances. Where do you draw the line for a species? The ability to evolve is created inside the code. I think species can only evolve so far. There is a reason you do not see cats driving cars. Or can we conclude that the Planet of the Apes is not that far in the future(say 1 million years).
The world we have created today with technology is nothing like the real natural world. There is a big probability in our welfare state for many bad traits to be passed on. In nature bad traits mean that your a snack for a bigger creature.
I would argue that skin cancer is proof that radiation damage is passed on. The cell is damaged and replicates creating another damaged cell that does not have its normal function. The damaged cells that replicate do not mutate, but carry on the damaged chromosomes of the original mutant.
Replicating every 20 minutes is mind boggling.
Your first statement is not true. The mutation need not occur in both parents, just one.
As for the species, that's a great question. Me personally, one or two different alleles do not make for a new species, just for a different proteome. This has been a big thing in microbiology of late because of the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes and other things...for the most part, speciation in bacteria is related to genetics, but also biochemical processes, i.e., some bacteria can break down urea to ammonia, some can't. Some can use maltose as a carbon source, others can't, and so on. For eukaryotes, I'm not sure what criteria is used. Phylogeny is not my strongpoint.
I would agree that a species can only go so far...but at that point, is doesn't just stop...would it then be another species? You can't just look at an organism and base everything on form...just because the things in "planet of the apes" look like apes doesn't mean they're apes in the way we know apes...if you're asking if apes will be able to develop the thought processes of humans and take over the world, I doubt it. But that's just speculation. It seems incredible, but that's probably more due to my lack of understanding of what's possible...
In your social example, I would agree somewhat. But the "bad traits" you speak of socially...are they nature or nurture? If one of those welfare people ended up becoming successful, would their children still have the "poor" traits? Genetics and social structure are not the same...in fact, one could make the argument that the poor people may be better off than the rich...they've learned to get by on less...in the event of any catastrophic event, they may have survival skills that the rich don't...but again, just speculation.
Your skin cancer logic is flawed. Those cancerous cells are not inherited by the next generation (we're talking an organismal level here, not cellular) unless you think you can take those skin cells and form a next generation. A trait is only heritable if it's carried in the genetics of the sperm or egg. Skin cancer would not be (however, higher susceptibility to skin cancer might). The 'damaged' chromosomes of the skin cells do not get transferred to the next generation of life...the next generation of skin cells is a different story, but a skin cell is not an organism. Unless you make the claim that every cell in our body is a separate organism. You'd have a hard time drawing that conclusion from any biological text or getting support from any biologist on that point.
Yeah, E. coli can grow fast. That's, of course, under lab conditions, though...in the real world, it may not go as fast based on nutrient limitations. In the lab, it's got the life of reilly.
Vegas
04-01-2007, 03:50 PM
Considering that my basic argument says that life and evolution can follow the rules of entropy and that I don't believe anyone person can say for sure whether or not the universe is opened or close...and my lack of firsthand physics knowledge, I won't argue...strongly at least.
In an open system, there if free movement of energy and matter, no? So if the energy of a system can increase (energy flowing in), and energy can be used to maintain (order), then why can't an open system decrease in entropy? If the energy source (sun) disappeared, then logically, the energy of the Earth would decrease, and I would agree entropy would increase...no light mean no plants. No plants means no food for the food chain and no oxygen. No food and no oxygen means no life (at least for humans and other verterbrates), thus they all die and decompose...a great example of entropy. But that's only when the energy ceases to flow in. If energy continues on in, plants grow, producing food for animals, and oxygen for respiration, and the process towards disorder is held off.
That argument has been mine since nearly the beginning of our discussion. As long as we have a means to obtain energy and maintain our bodies, we're (us as individuals) are maintaining order. However, that's relative because what happens to the world around us? If we eat a plant or meat or whatever, do we use 100% of that energy? Absolutely not. No system is 100% energy efficient, so some of that energy is lost in our waste products and in the heat lost during reactions in our body. The best estimation of photosynthetic efficiency is 30%. That means 70% of the energy available is not converted to glucose, so really most of the energy is lost...or disordered. That obviously follows the 2nd law and entropy.
If you're going to talk about a system, you need to look at the entire system. In order for us to live, we need food. How do we get food? By causing disorder of our food items...
Raw energy does not cause a localized decrease of entropy. Raw energy with an ordering mechanism can. Raw energy by itself cannot cause a decrease of entropy. The greater the outside heat energy that enters the system, the more the increase in its entropy and disorder.
Raw energy does not cause a localized decrease of entropy. Raw energy with an ordering mechanism can. Raw energy by itself cannot cause a decrease of entropy. The greater the outside heat energy that enters the system, the more the increase in its entropy and disorder.
OK, I see what you're saying. So, then in your view, anything alive would be an ordering mechanism? That is, plants convert raw energy to sugars and grow, thus providing the basis for the food chain, and all other organisms benefit, right?
So then it's not a question of whether or not life can go against entropy (for a period of time), but it's whether or not life could form to begin with?
But one point I'd like to clear up first is the assertion that raw energy can't decrease energy. Is there any reaction that occurs naturally as a result of excited molecules running into each other and forming bonds? There is no ordering mechanism here, unless you consider the excited states of the molecules the ordering system...
I gotta go mow the lawn. I'll be back for discussion later.
Vegas
04-01-2007, 04:02 PM
life
This actually needs a lot further discussion. We agree that all of the chemicals needed for life are in dirt (in perfect harmony with the Genesis record when God formed man out of dirt). The question is whether life is a result of property of substance or a result of organization.
Vegas
04-01-2007, 04:10 PM
OK, I see what you're saying. So, then in your view, anything alive would be an ordering mechanism? That is, plants convert raw energy to sugars and grow, thus providing the basis for the food chain, and all other organisms benefit, right?
So then it's not a question of whether or not life can go against entropy (for a period of time), but it's whether or not life could form to begin with?
But one point I'd like to clear up first is the assertion that raw energy can't decrease energy. Is there any reaction that occurs naturally as a result of excited molecules running into each other and forming bonds? There is no ordering mechanism here, unless you consider the excited states of the molecules the ordering system...
1 - Anything alive has the ordering mechanism and that ordering mechanism is what allows and controls the vital life functions, which are all the result of using the available raw energy.
2 - Life never goes "against entropy" but rather follows it. Over time, even though you have a huge available influx of energy, the organism breaks down and dies. And over that time a species becomes more disordered through mutations. Both follow the entropy arrow.
3 - As far as raw energy being unable to decrease energy, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. The vast majority of the sun's energy hitting the earth every day is unrecoverable and lost. It's a huge increase of entropy day by day. I have to think about the 2nd part of your question. I think it gets back to the thing like the ice crystals where they only do what they're bound to do by their atomic properties.
Vegas
04-01-2007, 04:22 PM
I need to write a few more scientific evidences for creation. Let's look at the fossil record.
The creation view would expect that at the beginning, there would be more species of plants and animals than we see today. Each would be fully developed. Over time, there would be extinction and an overall reduction in the total number of species. That is exactly what is seen in the fossil record. We know that many species have become extinct over time in accordance with the 2nd law. We don't see any of the transitional fossils that the evolution model predicts would exist.
I agree that most of the time, the conditions for fossilization don't happen, but considering how many gaps would need to be filled in for all of the transitions to have happened, there should be far more transitional fossils that there are fully formed fossils. Instead, we see none of the transitionals.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.