13 Mar 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI think lipis must have come into it somehow - to enclose the nuleic acids.
I imagine early cells were a mixture of both DNA and RNA, broadly speaking
indistuinguishable in respect to todays models.
The question arises, at what point did the disctinction in their functions arise
and why??
I expect it had something to do with the enormous energy required for these
processes.
23 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigado:All life that ever existed on earth seems to be RNA-DNA based. This definitely evidences an original life from which all life forms evolved."
please, don't come up with theological theories.
All life that ever existed on earth seems to be RNA-DNA based. This definitely evidences an original life from which all life forms evolved.
But imagining earth back then, I would say many different kinds of complex molecules aggregations could form. Why did only nucleic acid based ones survive?
If we ...[text shortened]... ilding blocks wouldn't be C,N,O,H based.
Or CNOH based, but using very different mechanisms.
The only thing that is really known out of what you just said is that
all life "...seems to be RNA-DNA based." so the rest is just assumptions
on your part.
Kelly
23 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoI'm not exactly sure, but I'm positive ABBA had something to do with it.
please, don't come up with theological theories.
All life that ever existed on earth seems to be RNA-DNA based. This definitely evidences an original life from which all life forms evolved.
But imagining earth back then, I would say many different kinds of complex molecules aggregations could form. Why did only nucleic acid based ones survive?
If we ...[text shortened]... ilding blocks wouldn't be C,N,O,H based.
Or CNOH based, but using very different mechanisms.
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by KellyJay:All life that ever existed on earth seems to be RNA-DNA based. This definitely evidences an original life from which all life forms evolved."
:All life that ever existed on earth seems to be RNA-DNA based. This definitely evidences an original life from which all life forms evolved."
The only thing that is really known out of what you just said is that
all life "...seems to be RNA-DNA based." so the rest is just assumptions
on your part.
Kelly
Yes, it does.
The only thing that is really known out of what you just said is that
all life "...seems to be RNA-DNA based." so the rest is just assumptions
on your part.
Yes, they are.
But they are the best assumptions given all the facts mankind knows today.
Your point is?
24 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoMy point is they are just that assumptions nothing more, basing your
[b]:All life that ever existed on earth seems to be RNA-DNA based. This definitely evidences an original life from which all life forms evolved."
Yes, it does.
The only thing that is really known out of what you just said is that
all life "...seems to be RNA-DNA based." so the rest is just assumptions
on your part.
Yes, they are.
But they are the best assumptions given all the facts mankind knows today.
Your point is?[/b]
views of reality on them may seem wise, but you have to keep in mind
your foundational views are based upon assumptions not facts, and
what it all really means could be off.
Kelly
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by KellyJaybut you have to keep in mind your foundational views are based upon assumptions not facts,
My point is they are just that assumptions nothing more, basing your
views of reality on them may seem wise, but you have to keep in mind
your foundational views are based upon assumptions not facts, and
what it all really means could be off.
Kelly
my foundational views are based on assumptions that are based on facts. Don't try to separate them. These are very good and hard to refute assumptions, and the most plausible ones given all the facts.
I know these doesn't make them automatically true, I know the difference. But a true independent analysis shows them to be the most plausible ones.
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by KellyJayA potential explanation is not really the same as an assumption. A fact is presented: all known life is based on coded nucleic acids in a two branch (DNA) or one branch (RNA) form. Of all proposed explanations, common ancestry fits the evidence best. Furthermore, this potential explanation of the fact can be used to test the common ancestry hypothesis. Should this explanation hold, we should see closely related lifeforms share a lot of their coding and more distantly related life forms have greater differences in their coding. We apply this test and find it to hold, so the explanation stands.
My point is they are just that assumptions nothing more, basing your
views of reality on them may seem wise, but you have to keep in mind
your foundational views are based upon assumptions not facts, and
what it all really means could be off.
Kelly
On the other hand, an assumption does not lend itself to such testing. If we were to assume that common ancestry is the reason, then we would not apply any further tests, the assumption would exist independant of the tests.
Yes, any hypothesis requires assumptions, but the hypothesis itself is not an assumption, and all assumptions are challenged constantly. a Popperian hypothesis is weaker the more assumptions it is based on, the idea behind Occams razor is to minimise the assumptions. Interesting paper...
http://www.botany.uga.edu/~suew/lander_gene_dupl.pdf
Figure 1 demonstrates an excellent example of Whole Genome Duplication in yeast species. I can give you any number of other articles demonstrating similar lineages. Such evidence turns the "assumption" into a working model which fits the data.
Also, I could suggest "What is this thing called science" by A. F. Chalmers, which clarifies the difference between assumption and hypothesis in chapter 5 much more clearly than I could in the space available.
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by agrysonAlso, the A. F. Chalmers book clarifies the justification for the foundational axioms (assumptions) in the first two chapters.
A potential explanation is not really the same as an assumption. A fact is presented: all known life is based on coded nucleic acids in a two branch (DNA) or one branch (RNA) form. Of all proposed explanations, common ancestry fits the evidence best. Furthermore, this potential explanation of the fact can be used to test the common ancestry hypothesis. Shoul ...[text shortened]... ssumption and hypothesis in chapter 5 much more clearly than I could in the space available.
There is a difference between assuming "your socks are orange" and assuming that "they are some colour", there's a possibility after all that you don't own socks at all, but it is a fools errand to equate one assumption with the other, which is a point dealt with in Bayesian scientific philosophy (chap 12)
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoAs long as you keep in mind what are the facts and assumptions
[b]but you have to keep in mind your foundational views are based upon assumptions not facts,
my foundational views are based on assumptions that are based on facts. Don't try to separate them. These are very good and hard to refute assumptions, and the most plausible ones given all the facts.
I know these doesn't make them automatically true, I know the difference. But a true independent analysis shows them to be the most plausible ones.[/b]
no big deal, if you start to suggest your 'assumptions' are facts than
you have left reality and will more than likely not even know it.
Kelly
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI know perfectly the difference. It's my job, and I'm proud of being quite good at it.
As long as you keep in mind what are the facts and assumptions
no big deal, if you start to suggest your 'assumptions' are facts than
you have left reality and will more than likely not even know it.
Kelly
24 Mar 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIn place of "you" in the above quote, I think it would be a much better if the word "we" was featured.
As long as you keep in mind what are the facts and assumptions
no big deal, if you start to suggest your 'assumptions' are facts than
you have left reality and will more than likely not even know it.
Kelly
It is just as much of a mistake to view a fact as an assumption, if not moreso since if I mistake an assumption for a fact I can be corrected on that point.
If one mistakes a fact for an assumption, much less room is left for that mistake to be corrected.
24 Mar 08
It'd impossible for evolution to of created life. If life is something that can just happen then we would be able to do it now. After all, if something just sparked millions of years ago and made life then we could do it now too. and we could bring people back from the dead too. Sure if someone dies then they would of have some organ damaged and without it the body can't function and dies, but isn't it supposed to be true that we evolved organs over time? And that we lost our tails because we didn't need them and all of that... It's illogical that we grew and got rid of organs since we didn't need them. Also needed them because if we evolved them needed to breath so we developed a heart and lungs, then that person would of died and life would never of started. and needed liver to clean blood so it evolved, but without that in the first place the life form would of died. Basically we have to have come in a perfect design somehow and also we needed to have life given to us, not formed over time.
Wow I'm going to get bashed for this >_
25 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mr AwsmWell, no you shouldn't get bashed, you just haven't understood evolution, and to clarify that point is in part what a science forum should be about, provided you're willing to attempt to clarify for yourself the arguments you are making, and ground them in good reasoning, which is something I hope you are willing to do. If your argument is based on a scriptual understanding, well, I'll see you in spirituality.
It'd impossible for evolution to of created life. If life is something that can just happen then we would be able to do it now. After all, if something just sparked millions of years ago and made life then we could do it now too. and we could bring people back from the dead too. Sure if someone dies then they would of have some organ damaged and without it t have life given to us, not formed over time.
Wow I'm going to get bashed for this >_
When you say "It'd impossible for evolution to of created life" you're absolutely right, evolution did not create life, what you're referring to there is abiogenesis, which is a whole other kettle of fish, and an active area of research. No scientist is making concrete claims as to the process of abiogenesis, though there are very promising areas of investigation.
Evolution however, in relation to your other points, is an established fact, there is no "logic" behind it, it has been observed to occur not just in the fossil record, but also in the lab with life-forms with a sufficiently short generational lifespan to make it practical. What you are calling into question and where the logic comes into play, is evolution by the process of natural selection. To question that model is possible, though would require that you can undermine the mountains of evidence in its favour. In your post, your attempts to do so have involved little more than incredulity rather than actual criticism that can be worked with.
Case in point: "It's illogical that we grew and got rid of organs since we didn't need them", why? evolution by the process of natural selection makes the point that to maintain an organ which is not required for the organisms survival or successful competition with other organisms is costing that organism resources which could be put to better use. A small organism with a simple renal system (it's primarily the kidneys which keep the blood clean, not the liver, but I can see the point you're making), just a few cells which are more efficient at removing toxins, would do better than it's peers, successful improvements on this simple system would be passed on, unsuccesful modifications would result in the death of the organism and the coding for that modification being lost. Thus, the environment "selects" those organisms with successively positive improvements to its survivabilty.
The next point: "Basically we have to have come in a perfect design somehow"
Our "design" is far from perfect, take the eye, having the optic nerve have to travel through the retina rather than be placed behind it is a terrible design, but to change that to an optic nerve which lies behind the retina and does not need to travel through it, giving our blind spot, requires huge changes to our embryological development, such massive changes are so improbable in the evolutionary model as to be statistically impossible, so if there were a designer who made us perfect, why the terrible cameras?
The appendix, a repository for gut bacteria which helps us regain our gut florae and fauna after a bout of dyssentry has been virtually unnecessary for thousands of years. The costs of having a large efficient appendix were worth it back in the savannah; were less than the costs of infection of that organ. Nowadays, the balance of costs is in the opposite direction, with the costs of maintaining the organ being higher than of losing it, hence it is as vestigial as the toes of a whales rear legs.
I think you simply need to understand which claims the evolutionary model is making and which it is not. I hope you're willing to do that, but I'd be perfectly willing to get into a pm session to clarify the issues for you on only one condition, that the discussion be based on that which can be verified to both of our satisfaction, which I think is a fair condition.