Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is most likely a part of intelligent design
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 31 of 59 (356173)
10-12-2006 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by AdminNosy
10-12-2006 2:46 AM


Re: Pay attention to what is posted
The parts you are quoting are discussing biological evolution NOT the development of the imperfect replicating chemicals from other chemicals.
Since when is biological evolution not chemical? It is in fact chemical evolution. DNA is just a complex molecule based on carbon. If he is saying replication in this instance evolved I can agree. To say it is ergo I cannot. This is the only example of the process we have. We have nothing to compare it to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AdminNosy, posted 10-12-2006 2:46 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AdminNosy, posted 10-12-2006 9:03 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 32 of 59 (356193)
10-12-2006 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by 2ice_baked_taters
10-12-2006 5:00 PM


Now be more careful about what you post.
Since when is biological evolution not chemical? It is in fact chemical evolution. DNA is just a complex molecule based on carbon. If he is saying replication in this instance evolved I can agree. To say it is ergo I cannot. This is the only example of the process we have. We have nothing to compare it to.
And just exactly what does the above have to do with the point that you are responding to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-12-2006 5:00 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-18-2006 11:20 AM AdminNosy has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 33 of 59 (356277)
10-13-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by sidelined
10-11-2006 1:27 PM


Re: God vs. Aliens
Complexity is hardly an arguement for a hidden intelligence since complex things are governed by simple laws that follow naturally from the makeup ofthe universe.
Are you saying that simplicity is an argument against intelligence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by sidelined, posted 10-11-2006 1:27 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by AdminNosy, posted 10-13-2006 10:08 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 34 of 59 (356280)
10-13-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by 2ice_baked_taters
10-13-2006 10:00 AM


Previous Posts 2ice
You have some previous posts which, it has been pointed out, did not correctly address those that they were repling to. It would be appropriate to acknowledge your errors and correct them.
Unproductive debate will require that you be given some time to go back over those posts.
Edited by AdminNosy, : Correct author

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-13-2006 10:00 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 35 of 59 (357242)
10-18-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AdminNosy
10-12-2006 9:03 PM


Re: Now be more careful about what you post.
And just exactly what does the above have to do with the point that you are responding to?
Parasomnium (post 21) Made these very sweeping statements:
Well, just as no instructions are needed for a glass to break when it falls to the floor, no instructions are needed for imperfect replicators to evolve into something more complex under selective pressure. If there are imperfect replicators, and they replicate imperfectly in an environment where there is selective pressure, then logic dictates that these imperfect replicators evolve. It's what must happen in these circumstances. And since the products of evolution become themselves part of the increasingly complex system that exerts the selective pressure - in a kind of feedback loop - it is also inevitable that simple things evolve in the direction of increasing complexity. Given imperfect replication under selective pressure (also known as mutation and natural selection), evolution, and with it, increasing complexity, are the inevitable consequences.
This was not specific to the process many call evolution that is to the best of our knowlegde unique to the earth. This starts with the basic idea of replicators and assumes evolution is logically inevitable.
My comments are right on point. To assume evolution is inevitable is completely illogical. We have no other examples of the evolutionary process. We have no way of knowing what other forms or directions it may take if it occurs elsewhere in the universe. If Parasomnium were to clarify and explain that the comments were earth evolution specific, I would have not have had reason to comment since where ever you go there you are. In other words, earth evolution is proof of itself. No kidding.
Parasomnium never took into consideration that replication may occur without evolution and end replication with evolution never taking place. There are countless examples of chemical processes we call species not adapting to change, and ceasing replication right here on earth. It's called extinction. If it were said that imperfect replicators have the potential to evolve I could agree with that. Beyond this all is speculation. The annology to glass breaking further generalized the nature of the comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AdminNosy, posted 10-12-2006 9:03 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Wounded King, posted 10-18-2006 11:57 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 38 by AdminNosy, posted 10-18-2006 1:29 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 36 of 59 (357246)
10-18-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by 2ice_baked_taters
10-18-2006 11:20 AM


Re: Now be more careful about what you post.
I'd put it to you that there are a number of in silico A-life experiments which have shown that imperfectly replicating code in a selective environment can evolve, and these are clearly distinct from the nucleic acid based imperfect replicators which from the basis of our own evolution.
Is there actually any argument you wish to provide as to why a population of imperfect replicators in a selective environment wouldn't evolve?
The fact that parasomnium species 'imperfect' replicators implies that there are also 'perfect' replicators a population of which would not undergoe evolution. As soon as 'imperfect' replication occurs there is evolution in a strict sense, although not the sort of adaptive evolution we usually talk about.
The only reasonable objection you raise is that parasomnium didn't include extinction as an outcome and that point is trivial at best and certainly doesn't counter Parasomnium's main points.
Additions I think might have been more useful would be a caveat to the effect that the increasing complexity need not be a one way process and that it is not neccessarily a continuing process. No organisms really needs to become more complex but starting of at a wall of very minimal complexity means that a randomised drunkards walk will always initially tend to take you away from the wall and towards greater complexity (Steven Jay Gould made this point excellently in his article 'THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE ON EARTH').
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-18-2006 11:20 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 59 (357259)
10-18-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Parasomnium
10-11-2006 6:01 PM


Re: There are no instructions
When a glass falls to the floor, it breaks. That's what anybody would expect to happen, isn't it? It just happens. Nobody in his right mind would suppose that somewhere in the glass, when it's still in one piece, there are instructions that specify what happens to the glass when it falls to the ground. That's a ridiculous idea, and I think you'd have a hard time trying to find anybody who would disagree. (Come to think of it though, when you're from America, I guess anything is possible...)
I have an objection to your glass breaking analogy as it would relate to replicators. Glass breaking, as you rightly alluded to, is a chaotic event that needs no supervision. How would a replicator be like this? Replication would be much more indicative of glass breaking, only to mend itself again-- hence, replicate.
In my best estimation, your argument is somewhat akin to chaos theory, in that even in chaotic systems, trial errors will eventually come out with a viable system or organism. The opposite argument of that would be proponents of ID mentioning the 2nd Law. Critics say that 2LoT is only applicable in closed systems and that the earth doesn't qualify because its open. Is that really the case though? Is the introduction of sustained energy really all that matters? No. How could it be? Everything tends toward disorder when left to its own devises, right?
Without maintainance a house will dilapidate. The introduction of limitless energy doesn't do a thing for it. Why is that? An atomic bomb contains megatons of energy, but it doesn't improve a thing. In fact, it does the exact opposite. Likewise, the sun provides the source of energy for this planet. Some may say, "aha," but that's only half the story. The sun beating on a roof does not improve the roof. It has the opposite effect. The reason why is because there is nothing to convert the energy. Energy alone is absolutely worthless without a mechanism, a designed mechanism, to convert that energy to make it useful.
An example of this would be photosynthesis. A rock gets poured on the same amount of energy as plants, yet it does nothing useful for the rock. In the same way, fuel for a car would just make the car burn if it were not for specific, designed, mechanism-- like the converter of an engine. Also, the suns energy does damage until there is a way to harness the energy. The sun beating down on a roof will cause the degradation of the roof, but place solar panels on the roof, and it will not only deflect much of the energy to the actual roof, but it can also be harnessed usefully.
Before you think I've just gone off on a crazy tangent, consider how its applicable to your argument.
You stated that DNA is more like a recipe than it is for an instruction. Consider another analogy. If you are trying to make a delectable soup, are you just going to randomly throw in spices in various amounts to hope that it will come out tasty? That's not a good recipe. And in fact, a recipe implies instruction. A recipe calls for a specific amount of this or that to create for yourslef the intended purpose.
If DNA is not really an instruction, then how would replication even be possible? If we just had a "recipe" of various chemicals, how would the morphology of any given organism form? If there were not some instruction involved, we'd just be a random blob of discombobulated atoms in no discernable fashion.
The fact is, replication is a complicated, irreducibly complex design. Glass breaking is not a good analogy, IMO, for a replicator for all the reasons listed. Glass mending itself would be much more indicative of a replicator.
And this is why random chaos could never produce the complexity and homogeneity we see in the universe. It certainly seems far more reasonable that we are the product of design.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Parasomnium, posted 10-11-2006 6:01 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Parasomnium, posted 10-18-2006 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 38 of 59 (357261)
10-18-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by 2ice_baked_taters
10-18-2006 11:20 AM


Getting back on track
Since you seem to have trouble reading this yourself I'll note the important parts.
para writes:
If there are imperfect replicators, and they replicate imperfectly in an environment where there is selective pressure, then logic dictates that these imperfect replicators evolve. It's what must happen in these circumstances.
2ice writes:
No, logic does not dictate this. We still do not understand why a certain group of chemical reactions based around the element carbon developed into a self replicating phenomenon. Nor do we understand why these replications first began evolving to "survive". Chemical reactions take place all the time. No other chemical reactions result in an evolutionary process that I am aware of. There is nothing logical to be understood about it as of yet. We are clueless as to why what we call organics resulted in evolution.
Para says IF there are imperfect replicators. Your response goes on about chemicals giving rise to those imprefect replicators. That is a SEPARATE issue. Para says IF they exist and are under selective pressure then evolution is a logical necessity. You didn't answer that at all; not in the slightest.
You reply to my first note:
2ice writes:
Since when is biological evolution not chemical? It is in fact chemical evolution. DNA is just a complex molecule based on carbon. If he is saying replication in this instance evolved I can agree. To say it is ergo I cannot. This is the only example of the process we have. We have nothing to compare it to.
This has NOTHING to do with the issue. If you think it does please explain in detail why. Everything is a chemical. Again the statment is: WHEN there are imperfect replicators under selective pressure then evolution MUST occur. In the interests of forwarding the dicussion please address yourself to that.
Your last 3 sentences don't appear to make any sense at all.
2ice writes:
This was not specific to the process many call evolution that is to the best of our knowlegde unique to the earth. This starts with the basic idea of replicators and assumes evolution is logically inevitable.
My comments are right on point. To assume evolution is inevitable is completely illogical. We have no other examples of the evolutionary process. We have no way of knowing what other forms or directions it may take if it occurs elsewhere in the universe. If Parasomnium were to clarify and explain that the comments were earth evolution specific, I would have not have had reason to comment since where ever you go there you are. In other words, earth evolution is proof of itself. No kidding.
Please explain why another example is necessary. Perhaps you can ask Para to explain in more detail about exactly WHY evolution is a logical necessity based on the scenario he paints if you don't understand it. I agree that para has not detailed the reasoning behind it an that is what you should ask for since you are attacking his assertion with a bunch of non-sequiters you obviously don't understand his point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-18-2006 11:20 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-19-2006 11:23 AM AdminNosy has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 39 of 59 (357299)
10-18-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
10-18-2006 1:22 PM


Re: There are no instructions
I have an objection to your glass breaking analogy as it would relate to replicators.
You misunderstood the point of my breaking glass; it has nothing to do with replicators. It was an example of something that doesn't need instructions for it to happen. It was a reaction to something Kent75 wrote:
that deep in the blueprints of the dna of the first organisms on earth were instructions created by an intelligent designer for these organisms to *evolve* into complex things...
In a certain sense, DNA can be said to contain "instructions", but they are not instructions that tell an organism how to evolve, let alone how to evolve in a specified direction. The only way in which DNA contains instructions is in the specification* it gives for the arrangement of amino acids in proteins.
My point with the breaking glass was that the logical consequence of having a glass in free fall above a hard surface is that it inevitably breaks. In the same way, the logical consequence of having imperfect replicators under selective pressure is that these replicators inevitably evolve.
Energy alone is absolutely worthless without a mechanism, a designed mechanism, to convert that energy to make it useful.
You are making a crucial mistake here, which is the unwarranted inclusion of the word 'designed' in your assertion. Without it, you have a point. But by insisting that the mechanism must be designed, you invalidate your reasoning.
You stated that DNA is more like a recipe than it is for an instruction.
No, I didn't say that. As you can see in what I wrote above, I have no qualms with the concept of "instructions" in DNA. What I said was that DNA is not like a blueprint. That's because a blueprint is an exact description of what something is going to look like when it's finished. DNA isn't like that. It merely specifies what amino acid goes where in a protein. There's nothing in DNA about hair colour, physiognomy or whatever other heritable characteristic you care to think of. Likewise, there's nothing in a cake recipe that tells you how crispy the crust is going to be, or how mellow the filling. It just specifies what goes into it, in which quantities, and how long to bake it. That's why I said DNA is more like a recipe than like a blueprint.
If we just had a "recipe" of various chemicals, how would the morphology of any given organism form?
Where in the recipe for cookies is the crispiness specified? Or the nice brown colour? Those characteristics arise out of the process of making cookies, but they are not specified.
In a cell, when a ribosome reads an RNA molecule, it appends amino acid after amino acid to a growing chain of them, in a linear fashion. But due to the physico-chemical characteristics of the various amino acids and their interactions, the chain folds in a particular way. There is no instruction anywhere in the DNA that corresponds to the way the protein folds. It just happens that way. It results in a protein with a very specific form that gives it very specific function. But all of that just happens because the physics and the chemistry happen to work that way.
If there were not some instruction involved, we'd just be a random blob of discombobulated atoms in no discernable fashion.
As I've just explained, and as you'll find out if you learn about protein synthesis, that's just not true.
And this is why random chaos could never produce the complexity and homogeneity we see in the universe.
In evolutionary theory, only mutations are random. Natural selection is far from random, as has been explained a countless number of times already. Please, in the interest of the discussion, familiarize yourself with the ins and outs of the theory of evolution. If you do, you will realize that randomness isn't by far the whole story.
* I think a disclaimer, although slightly off-topic, would be justified here, because I realise I'm in grave danger of being misunderstood once again, for allowing instructions in DNA, and speaking of "specifications". This could very easily be misconstrued as admitting the existence of an "instructor" and a "specifier", in the form of some kind of intelligent being. I most emphatically deny admitting that. I think the mindless process of evolution can give rise to instructions, specifications and design, without the need whatsoever for a guiding intelligence.
Edited by Parasomnium, : spelling

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2006 1:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2006 11:20 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 59 (357379)
10-18-2006 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Parasomnium
10-18-2006 4:47 PM


Re: There are no instructions
You misunderstood the point of my breaking glass; it has nothing to do with replicators. It was an example of something that doesn't need instructions for it to happen.
Did I really misinterpret it that poorly?
Parasomnium writes:
And si
quote:
no instructions are needed for a glass to break when it falls to the floor, no instructions are needed for imperfect replicators to evolve into something more complex under selective pressure. If there are imperfect replicators, and they replicate imperfectly in an environment where there is selective pressure, then logic dictates that these imperfect replicators evolve. It's what must happen in these circumstances.
it is also inevitable that simple things evolve in the direction of increasing complexity.
Then you are at odds with about 95% of evolutionary orthodoxy as far as it relates to the increase of complexity. We've all known this was the implication growing up, but until recently, the concept that things become more complex or "better" has turned on its head.
"All extant species are equally evolved." ” Lynn Margulis
"There is no progress in evolution." ” Stephen Jay Gould
"We all agree that there's no progress." ” Richard Dawkins
"The fallacy of progress" ” John Maynard Smith
But this seems to be counter-intuitive that if evolution is an actual biological occurance that an indication of things going from simple to complex seems abundantly clear-- especially when we look at cladograms.
"Seen in retrospect, evolution as a whole doubtless had a general direction, from simple to complex, from dependence on to relative independence of the environment, to greater and greater autonomy of individuals, greater and greater development of sense organs and nervous systems conveying and processing information about the state of the organism's surroundings, and finally greater and greater consciousness. You can call this direction progress or by some other name." ” Theodosius Dobzhansky
In a certain sense, DNA can be said to contain "instructions", but they are not instructions that tell an organism how to evolve, let alone how to evolve in a specified direction. The only way in which DNA contains instructions is in the specification* it gives for the arrangement of amino acids in proteins.
I see what you're saying, and theoretically, I agree with you to a point. Selective pressures certainly wouldn't have any guided direction, but the implication is that the selective process invariably weeds out the weak and retains the strong. But surely you'd have to concede, at least in part, that DNA is an encoded message that could not have simply formed itself through a series of stepwaise gradations. And this for the simple fact that its a chicken-egg argument. You can't have enzymes w/o genes, and you can't genes w/o enzymes.
My point with the breaking glass was that the logical consequence of having a glass in free fall above a hard surface is that it inevitably breaks. In the same way, the logical consequence of having imperfect replicators under selective pressure is that these replicators inevitably evolve.
How is that? And by what defintion do mean 'evolve?' There are very loose definitions of constitutes evolution. If by the inevitable consequence is that any organisms offspring will have slight modifications, then certainly there is truth to that. Afterall, we acquire different sets of genes from our parents, so as to not be carbon copies of one another.
You are making a crucial mistake here, which is the unwarranted inclusion of the word 'designed' in your assertion. Without it, you have a point. But by insisting that the mechanism must be designed, you invalidate your reasoning.
My inclusion of the word design is my personal belief. Call it an argument of incredulity or call it an argument of sensibility, but given the fierce complexity of energy converters, such as photosynthesis, it seems like a logical inference.
As you can see in what I wrote above, I have no qualms with the concept of "instructions" in DNA. What I said was that DNA is not like a blueprint. That's because a blueprint is an exact description of what something is going to look like when it's finished. DNA isn't like that. It merely specifies what amino acid goes where in a protein. There's nothing in DNA about hair colour, physiognomy or whatever other heritable characteristic you care to think of.
I see what you mean by blueprint being an exact description, but if DNA and RNA determine sequences that tells amino's how to create proteins, and homeobox proteins help to determine morphology, that's a clear instruction. If was not structured, then, as I said, we shoul never expect to see any likenesses in our design. (And by design, I mean patterning, not necessarily a willful act of higher cognizance).
Likewise, there's nothing in a cake recipe that tells you how crispy the crust is going to be, or how mellow the filling. It just specifies what goes into it, in which quantities, and how long to bake it. That's why I said DNA is more like a recipe than like a blueprint.
Then consider it mutations that disrupts the process of the blueprint, like an ink stain on part of the blueprint. But it should be unquestionable that there is a high level of complex arrangements that are already contained within the DNA. If its already there, then why wouldn't be alot like a blueprint? Again, that taking into consideration that nothing is an exact replication of something else.
Where in the recipe for cookies is the crispiness specified? Or the nice brown colour? Those characteristics arise out of the process of making cookies, but they are not specified.
Those specifications are in the instructions(DNA). Hair color is genetic and so is eye color. But, there are mutations that can occur, that are benign in nature that can effect change in that color. All blue eyes are, is caused by non-malignant mutations.
In a cell, when a ribosome reads an RNA molecule, it appends amino acid after amino acid to a growing chain of them, in a linear fashion. But due to the physico-chemical characteristics of the various amino acids and their interactions, the chain folds in a particular way. There is no instruction anywhere in the DNA that corresponds to the way the protein folds.
Are you specifically talking about peptide chains?
quote:
If there were not some instruction involved, we'd just be a random blob of discombobulated atoms in no discernable fashion.
As I've just explained, and as you'll find out if you learn about protein synthesis, that's just not true.
Well, atoms don't qualify. I was injecting a little bit of hyperbole. The point is, without some sort of specific genetic code, your recipe would be recipe for disaster. We'd just be a soup of chemicals otherwise.
In evolutionary theory, only mutations are random. Natural selection is far from random, as has been explained a countless number of times already. Please, in the interest of the discussion, familiarize yourself with the ins and outs of the theory of evolution. If you do, you will realize that randomness isn't by far the whole story.
In order to arrive at the basic building blocks of life while maintaining an evolutionary framework, a chemical evolution would had have had to occur. That chemical evolution certainly would have been a random, shot-in-the-dark occurance. So, I don't see how chaos wouldn't be apart of your fundamental beliefs concerning the theory. In fact, chaos theory attempts to explain how how trial and error will eventually arrive at a pattern. Isn't that exactly what is described about how simple eukaryotes came to be?
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Parasomnium, posted 10-18-2006 4:47 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 10-18-2006 11:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 10-19-2006 12:17 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 59 (357381)
10-18-2006 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
10-18-2006 11:20 PM


Chemical evolution
That chemical evolution certainly would have been a random, shot-in-the-dark occurance.
The pre-biotic steps have to be divided into chemical before there is any replication and then some fuzzy thing between chemical and life where there is replication.
While the last word is far from in it is clear that this statment is incorrect. It may have been a shot-in-the-dark occurance but it may also have been near enough to inevitable that the first steps happened and it was not random but a result of the extant chemistry of the time.
You hint here that it was not only random but also very unlikely. It is clear that some of the very early steps are actually rather likely and it may be that the last steps to reach early imperfect replicators is also likely but we just don't know right now.
What is true is that, in light of that ignorance we have, you can not use "certainly". In fact, those steps would NOT be chemical evolution until the chemicals were replicators. Once they are replicators there would probably be a large degree of randomness. Before that they may or may not have been very random but may instead have been inevitable results of chemitry under the extant conditions.
In any case, this is ALL off topic!! We are talking about evolution of biotic entities NOT the pre-biotic steps.
I'll leave your misconceptions about the definition of evolution to others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2006 11:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 59 (357385)
10-19-2006 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
10-18-2006 11:20 PM


Re: There are no instructions
We've all known this was the implication growing up, but until recently, the concept that things become more complex or "better" has turned on its head.
"All extant species are equally evolved." ” Lynn Margulis
"There is no progress in evolution." ” Stephen Jay Gould
"We all agree that there's no progress." ” Richard Dawkins
"The fallacy of progress" ” John Maynard Smith
Read much? I don't see the words "better" or "complex" (they're not synonyms, by the way) in any of those quotes.
And this for the simple fact that its a chicken-egg argument. You can't have enzymes w/o genes, and you can't genes w/o enzymes.
According to RNA research, that's exactly what you can have. RNA can catalyze reactions directly in the same way that protein enzymes do.
There's no chicken/egg problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2006 11:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-19-2006 11:20 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 59 (357443)
10-19-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
10-19-2006 12:17 AM


Re: There are no instructions
Read much? I don't see the words "better" or "complex" (they're not synonyms, by the way) in any of those quotes.
How is that not synonymous? Most evolutionists of the past recognized a general direction-- from less to greater, less intelligent to more intelligent, less autonomy to more autonomy, from simple to complex. Over the past century, some very unpopular beliefs about eugenics arose as a direct result of Darwin's theory. Its now considered taboo to refer to a species as more or less evolved, as in, less complex or intelligent, to more complex or more intelligent.
But lets get real. When looking at the famous evolutionary tree, anyone can see a general direction no matter how taboo that's become in recent decades.
According to RNA research, that's exactly what you can have. RNA can catalyze reactions directly in the same way that protein enzymes do.
There's no chicken/egg problem.
I was speaking more about how RNA could have come about all on its own in the frist place when it needs enzymes and genes at the same time. RNA can be transcribed into DNA, in reverse of the normal process of transcription. This mostly why 'RNA-first' proponents find it an attractive, original pathway towards the first cells or proto-cells. The synthesizing of nucleotides and achieving replication of RNA under plausible prebiotic conditions have proved just as challenging as all the other Origin of life considerations.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 10-19-2006 12:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 10-19-2006 2:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 44 of 59 (357444)
10-19-2006 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by AdminNosy
10-18-2006 1:29 PM


Re: Getting back on track
This has NOTHING to do with the issue. If you think it does please explain in detail why. Everything is a chemical. Again the statment is: WHEN there are imperfect replicators under selective pressure then evolution MUST occur. In the interests of forwarding the dicussion please address yourself to that.
Let me explain.
Replicators: We have no corner on the rules governing replication in the universe. We are clueless on the subject. We are only mildly self educated on the one example we know. I simply consider all the various unexpected structures and states of matter we are running into as we study our universe...and we have seen so little. I consider the unique and unexpected ways life survives on this earth. I consider that the process on the earth we call evolution is just another chemical process. Chemical replication may have happened, will happened or, may be happening somewhere. What form it may take and wether or not it evolves or is capable or likely to evolve we have no way of knowing. To extrapolate a conclusion as Para has from the only example we have is a very good example of inductive logic.
Please explain why another example is necessary. Perhaps you can ask Para to explain in more detail about exactly WHY evolution is a logical necessity based on the scenario he paints if you don't understand it. I agree that para has not detailed the reasoning behind it an that is what you should ask for since you are attacking his assertion with a bunch of non-sequiters you obviously don't understand his point.
Para's point has no basis in fact and is meaningless accept in this sense.
If Para uses the direction of these comments to state: "if evolution as we know it were to occur elsewhere then evolution of imperfect replicators would occur elsewhere" they would be correct....a pointless no brainer. This is the only thing Para's statements will logically support. They are earth evolution specific. They are derived from one source. To induce that all scenarios, if they occur past,present or future, will follow our rules is not logical. We do not know what all the rules governing this process are yet let alone what is possible.
Another thing to consider...as I see someone has succeeded in building crude facimilies of RNA.....even if we recreate life as we know it, it only succeeds in demonstrating that a product of the evolutionary process can continue the process. We have to see it occur elsewhere...independantly. We simply like engadging in self affiming activities. We and our evolutionary process are the center of everything therefore the universe and all imperfect replicators if they exist must follow our model..right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by AdminNosy, posted 10-18-2006 1:29 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AdminNosy, posted 10-19-2006 11:30 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 45 of 59 (357448)
10-19-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by 2ice_baked_taters
10-19-2006 11:23 AM


Re: Getting back on track
This thread is about evolutionary processes. You random ramble of a post has little to do with that.
If you can't concentrate on the posts you may have to take a break.
Edited by AdminNosy, : author correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 10-19-2006 11:23 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024