01 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou are really full of yourself you know that! If you don't wish to follow
You DO if we're still talking about evolution. That's the whole point.
Now, unless you got better qualifications than me on this subject I suggest you sit down and let the grown ups talk.
a conversation I'm in, than don't, but don't jump in behind me and claim
you have better qualifications so I should shut up, quite the high water mark
of arrogance you are displaying here, all conversations of this nature they
flow around several topics.
Kelly
01 Feb 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you believe this occured, spell it out, tell us when and how!
A few billion years is a 'limited time'? I guess so.
[b]The conditions had to be just right, not to hot or to cold,
Thats a bit vague. How exact did they need to be? Can you for example give the temperature range within which it was possible?
Can you also give us the approximate proportion of the universe which lies within said temperature range. ...[text shortened]... within the earths range. So there probably are over a billion such planets in our galaxy.[/b]
Your claims of billions of years is just as vague or not specific as
anything I have said. I was asked why I don't believe it occured, and
I gave the reason, if you believe it did you should have a little
more to go on than there as a lot of time it was bound to happen.
Kelly
01 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheaddouble post
A few billion years is a 'limited time'? I guess so.
[b]The conditions had to be just right, not to hot or to cold,
Thats a bit vague. How exact did they need to be? Can you for example give the temperature range within which it was possible?
Can you also give us the approximate proportion of the universe which lies within said temperature range. within the earths range. So there probably are over a billion such planets in our galaxy.[/b]
Kelly
01 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Green PaladinIf you combine that experiment with long periods of time and the fact that the L-enantiomer is slightly more stable, you explain why we only have the one enantiomer in us.
Dawkins' analogy of a combination lock is a premise in a longer argument. If you're interested it can be found here:
http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,7
Your doubt regarding the primordial ooze:
The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and f evolutionary deterrent. In fact, pain and suffering (death) accelerate evolutionary forces.
The answer may lie in fundamental physics: the parity-violating weak neutral current produces a very slight energy difference between left and right handed molecules, which may become amplified over an evolutionary timescale, and our calculations of this energy difference show that the natural L-amino acids are indeed more stable than their "unnatural" D mirror images.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/question.htm
Young Earth Creationism fails to explain this fact.
01 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungedit
If you combine that experiment with long periods of time and the fact that the L-enantiomer is slightly more stable, you explain why we only have the one enantiomer in us.
The answer may lie in fundamental physics: the parity-violating weak neutral current produces a very slight energy difference between left and right handed molecules, which ma e.com/homepages/rossuk/question.htm
Young Earth Creationism fails to explain this fact.
01 Feb 08
Originally posted by Green PaladinBiased or not (as if anyone is pure), problems related to the experiment's "proof" are not and have not been answered.
You're right, this is funny. Check out their link:
http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/creation.htm
Apart from being a completely biased view (there are no problems listed only evidence), there is a representation of the Creation of Adam, painted by the screaming queen, Michelangelo!
01 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAll right, let's look at the "Problems with theory:"
Biased or not (as if anyone is pure), problems related to the experiment's "proof" are not and have not been answered.
1. Amino acids have to become protein
a. 1 protein = 100amino acids of 20 varieties
Yes, amino acids are the building blocks of protein not the actual protein.
b. 10130 combinations of amino acids
Interesting.
c. Hard to hit the right protein by accident
Not necessary to 'hit the right protein.'
d. Amino acids are building blocks, not the assembled structure
Correct.
2. Early atmosphere contain different gases than those used by Miller/Urey
a. No ammonia and methane
None?
b. Not reduced (opposite of oxidized)
Don't know.
c. Experiments with true atmospheric gases did not produce abundant amino acids
Not abundant? So amino acids were produced.
3. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
a. System becomes less and less organized over time
Not where life is present. Life reduces the amount of disorder.
b. Means amino acids cannot form protein spontaneously (more and more organized)
See above.
4. Primordial soup too dilute to achieve anything
What a joke! What does "too dilute to achieve anything" mean?
a. Cannot spontaneously generate proteins
Says who?
b. No mechanism to concentrate and make protein
Its not a batter recipe.
01 Feb 08
With respect to whether or not there was ammonia in early Earth's atmosphere...it doesn't matter.
In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The H atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
MICR 425: PHYSIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY of MICROORGANISMS: The Origin of Life. SIUC / College of Science. Retrieved on 2005-12-17.
During recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids -- only those available in prebiotic nature -- than the current one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Brooks D.J., Fresco J.R., Lesk A.M. & Singh M. (2002). "Evolution of amino acid frequencies in proteins over deep time: inferred order of introduction of amino acids into the genetic code". Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 1645–55
01 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, since you brought it up, Wiki has more on the topic.
With respect to whether or not there was ammonia in early Earth's atmosphere...it doesn't matter.
In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The H atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive n of amino acids into the genetic code". Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 1645–55
"As of 2007, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life the so-called "bottom-up-approach". Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics."
"On the other hand, the spontaneous formation of complex polymers from abiotically generated monomers under these conditions is not at all a straightforward process. Besides the necessary basic organic monomers, compounds that would have prohibited the formation of polymers were formed in high concentration during the experiments."
"It can be argued that the most crucial challenge unanswered by this theory is how the relatively simple organic building blocks polymerise and form more complex structures, interacting in consistent ways to form a protocell. For example, in an aqueous environment hydrolysis of oligomers/polymers into their constituent monomers would be favored over the condensation of individual monomers into polymers. Also, the Miller experiment produces many substances that would undergo cross-reactions with the amino acids or terminate the peptide chain." emphasis added
Apparently, not as cut-and-dried as you would like to characterize the work.
02 Feb 08
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomseems to me that many here still do not understand what the theory of evolution is, despite feeling able to comment on it, and mix it with all sorts of other concepts.....
this is the topic i got to write about in english, which is great because i talk about daily. i just wanted to post this and see what everyone's opinion here is on evolution being taught in school but not creationism.
therefore, there is a desperate need to have it taught in schools, especially now that the practical side to evolution touches so many other areas of modern life.
02 Feb 08
Originally posted by doodinthemoodArg. You've fallen into a trap by introducing this analogy. Now opponents of evolution will argue against the details of your analogy instead of the issue itself, scoring points with observers that don't understand the intended scope of the analogy.
I never understood how people can not "buy that" when it's one of the simplest concepts to understand in all of science. Maybe some people are just wilfully idiotic when it comes to evolution?
I had two shuffled decks of cards, I handed them to the audience to shuffle then managed to turn over the top 8 cards and they were the aces from both decks!! ...[text shortened]... I finally have all 8 aces, it's not impressive at all, no 'odds' have been 'overcome'.
In these contentious debates, I always try to talk about the thing itself. Analogies, against a clever opponent, do more to undermine your point than advance it.
02 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayBut any given life form didn't pop up from nothing. It popped up from something only a very simple tweak away from something else.
We can do the math, look at a life form find the number of things
that had to happen to get just one to pop up from nothing.
Kelly
Also, I feel that your previous statements indicate that you feel there is something special about abiogenesis in particular. In fact, evolution has no regard whatsoever for life. It is a process that unfolds in non-living things and living things all the same, and can progress in a way that jumps the boundary willy-nilly.
The only precondition for evolution to occur is that something with potential variability must be capable of self-replication. Whether these are chemical compounds or advanced life forms doesn't make a bit of difference.
02 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayLook, I've explained this topic at length here to you many times before. You are either deliberately, knowingly lying, or a wee bit thick.
You are really full of yourself you know that! If you don't wish to follow
a conversation I'm in, than don't, but don't jump in behind me and claim
you have better qualifications so I should shut up, quite the high water mark
of arrogance you are displaying here, all conversations of this nature they
flow around several topics.
Kelly
I'm fed up with your mis-representation of my subject. Do you debate diagnoses with your physician? No? Why not? Perhaps because you're not qualified and he is? Well, in this arena (evolutionary biology) you are not qualified, and I am.
02 Feb 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandBefore it "should be" taught in schools, it "oughta be" proven true. Owing to the lack of the latter, the former "should (not) be" occuring... 'your' subject, or not.
seems to me that many here still do not understand what the theory of evolution is, despite feeling able to comment on it, and mix it with all sorts of other concepts.....
therefore, there is a desperate need to have it taught in schools, especially now that the practical side to evolution touches so many other areas of modern life.