13 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseYes it does culminat in something different. In most cases genes are taken from other species and not from other maize plants. This does not result in a 'hybrid' but rather what could almost be termed a new species. This type of gene transfer is known to take place in nature.
Has this new info culminated in anything different, i.e. maize become something other than a hybrid of itself. And where would the first DNA originate?
I see variation, never the culmination of brand new genetic information.
It is also a well known fact that brand new genes do occur naturally due to various factors.
Could you propose a hypothesis for this randomly generating a living, functioning organism?
No. You clearly have not learnt anything about the Theory of Evolution. It is not about random generation of anything. If you have a large enough system of replicating "things" whether small molecules, cells or multicellular life forms, which are capable of some variation, then they will evolve over time into other forms. The more successfull forms will prevail over time and this implies that the cellular structure is a fairly stable successfull form.
There are two very important points to note.
1. This is not a random falling together of bits. It follows well defined rules with specific preasures as in my example of a jar of muddy water, there is the 'preasure' of gravity and it creates a pattern.
2. Evolution does not neccesarily result in more complexity. Viruses and bacteria still exist to this day and are very successfull organisms.
What makes you so sure that there are no self replicating molecules in nature other than DNA or outside of cells? RNA replicates.
Most studied viruses replicate inside cells, does this mean that no virus exists that can replicate in the right soup of amono acids ? That is a very big assumption.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe Polymerase chain reaction is a method that biologists use to amplify DNA. It involves the seqeuential cycling of a DNA molecule (or molecules) through a series of temperatures, which first split the two strands apart, and then cool it sufficiently to allow a bacterial DNA polymerase to synthesize new DNA. These new strands are then split apart again and the cycle continues (primers and nucleotides are supplied). Whilst DNA is required as a template, this process is mechanically controlled.
What is it?
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSee for example copious literature on Agrobacterium , a soil bacteria that transfers DNA between organisms on a frequent basis, or numerous fungi (some of which have up to 13 sexes), bacteria, etc which frequently trade DNA. Not uncommon in nature really.
Examples?
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe point being (before you ask), is if we can do it in a lab (very effectively using specific methodology) there is no reason why it couldn't happen in nature.
The Polymerase chain reaction is a method that biologists use to amplify DNA. It involves the seqeuential cycling of a DNA molecule (or molecules) through a series of temperatures, which first split the two strands apart, and then cool it sufficiently to allow a bacterial DNA polymerase to synthesize new DNA. These new strands are then split apart aga ...[text shortened]... s are supplied). Whilst DNA is required as a template, this process is mechanically controlled.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenAnd my best regards to you too.
I'm on the side of twitehead on this particular matter. I, too, believe that life doesn't need to originate from any form of previous intelligence, but that in fact, life has slowly evolved from something less to something more complex. [Edit: with focus on believe I'm beginning to understand]
You are an intelligent person Halitose, there can be ...[text shortened]... st hope we never find out who. What would life be without discussions like these?
Keep living
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseHow is this relevant to the discussion? There is no law in physics, thermodynamics or any other science that states or implies that every system (not a closed system) must get less complex or more random. To me the formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc are shining examples of the fact that very complex things can form from something as simple as a cloud of hydrogen atoms.
Theoretically, the universe is a closed system, yes?
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow is this relevant to the discussion?
How is this relevant to the discussion? There is no law in physics, thermodynamics or any other science that states or implies that every system (not a closed system) must get less complex or more random. To me the formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc are shining examples of the fact that very complex things can form from something as simple as a cloud of hydrogen atoms.
www.answers.com/second law of thermodynamics
If the universe is a closed system, the second law of thermodynamics would certainly apply.
To me the formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc are shining examples of the fact that very complex things can form from something as simple as a cloud of hydrogen atoms.
Begging the question.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI still dont see the relevance. Even if the universe as a whole is obeying the second law (which I dispute) that does not imply that the earth or things on the earth do so as they are not closed systems. In fact this is clearly stated on the link you have given.
www.answers.com/second law of thermodynamics
If the universe is a closed system, the second law of thermodynamics would certainly apply.
Also I do not see any substantiation yet to your claim that without intelligent input, things become more rundown, more random and less complex. It is cirtainly not part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. You clearly have not learnt anything about the Theory of Evolution.
Yes it does culminat in something different. In most cases genes are taken from other species and not from other maize plants. This does not result in a 'hybrid' but rather what could almost be termed a new species. This type of gene transfer is known to take place in nature.
It is also a well known fact that brand new genes do occur naturally due to v ...[text shortened]... irus exists that can replicate in the right soup of amono acids ? That is a very big assumption.
Lol, resorting to the renowned last-ditch defense: Argumentum ad hominem? 😞
It is not about [b]random generation of anything. If you have a large enough system of replicating "things" whether small molecules, cells or multicellular life forms, which are capable of some variation, then they will evolve over time into other forms.[/b]
Ahem... again, begging the question, where did these "small things" come from? Random processes. It seems like your TOE starts after abiogenesis.
1. This is not a [b]random falling together of bits. It follows well defined rules with specific preasures as in my example of a jar of muddy water, there is the 'preasure' of gravity and it creates a pattern.[/b]
Hydrological sorting is also dependent on density - but this is beside the point. What particles would be hydrologically sorted to form a more complex compound? You seem to be groping in the dark here. Science works on observable phenomenon, not random, unlinked processes - not hydrological sorting here, DNA formation there, and boom, new creature; there should be a clearly defined link.
2. Evolution does not neccesarily result in more complexity. Viruses and bacteria still exist to this day and are very successfull organisms.
When starting from nothing and ending with something, this is certainly the case of "result in more complexity".
Most studied viruses replicate inside cells, does this mean that no virus exists that can replicate in the right soup of amono acids ?
Inside host cells, yes. How the plague do you get something more complex to replicate in when a virus is part of this chain of developing complexity?