People That Think Evolution is Fake

[Guest026]

I don't get why some people don't believe that evolution is real. Why do people think evolution is fake? or is asking it like asking a godwad why they believe in god? im also wondering if evolving could mean having genetic mutations because in every movie that has anything to do with evolution they say that it means to mutate, i used to think they just said this because they just didnt know what evolution meant but there are so many writers out there that write about it like this and they are all full grown adults and im a teenager so i probably am wrong and not them

 

by the way you probably guessed already but my knowledge of genetics is the same as a seventh grader's

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Evolution is indeed partly about mutations. A gene mutates, making it do something different, and if that something different is good, it is passed on to many offspring.

[CharonY]

Just to clarify, evolution requires that there are a means to have genetic variation. Mutation is one of these. However, mutation itself does not lead to evolution.

In other words, wherever you heard that mutations equals evolution or is the only force accountable for evolution, it is plainly wrong. Mutation is but one of the mechanisms of evolution.

[iNow]

Guest026,

 

Take about 10 minutes and watch these:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6574747902226985762&q=sagan+cosmos+evolution&total=28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522726029201501667&q=sagan+cosmos+evolution&total=28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[pioneer]

Evolution is about genetic changes but it is also about the environment setting the potentials that direct the types of changes that will occur. For example, antibiotics are chemicals that have eliminated many harmful bacteria while also changing the inner environment so stronger more resistant strong could evolve and gain selective advantage.

 

Before antibiotics, the bacteria that could profilerate the quickest had the selective advantage and would sort of squeeze out ones that could not. The anitbiotics did a good job getting rid of these pests, but in doing so changed the environment to where certain resistant strains, which once got pushed out by other bacteria, now had more room to grow. Medicines helped alterred the environment so superstrains could come to the front. We need to keep one step ahead by alterring the environment.

 

Based on this observation of how the environment can affect the type of strains that evolve, maybe we can use this to our advantage. What would happen if we catered to a harmless bacteria that was able to grow faster than all others. This good bacteria could make it harder for harmful strains which try to enter its territory.

 

The problem with could create is a constant immune response. However, there are many helpful bacteria in the digestive tract, for instance, that the body seems to tolerate without needing to constantly fight. Maybe these have certain characteristics that tell the body these are allies.

[lucaspa]

I don't get why some people don't believe that evolution is real. Why do people think evolution is fake? or is asking it like asking a godwad why they believe in god?

 

1. Why isn't this in "Evolution".

2. The best answer I have found is an essay by Hiram Berry in the book Is God a Creationist? edited by Roland Frye. Basically, some people have tied untestable statements of ultimate meaning -- God exists and God created -- to very testable statements about HOW God created. When those testable statements -- creationism -- are falsified, then those people are faced with a crisis of faith. They can either reject their statements of ultimate meaning or reject evolution. They choose to reject evolution.

 

3. BTW, I am a "godwad" and an evolutionist. Like Darwin, Asa Gray, Dobzhansky, Wolcott, Ayala, Kenneth Miller, and at least 50% of evolutionary biologists. So I would appreciate that you did not engage in ad hominem.

 

im also wondering if evolving could mean having genetic mutations because in every movie that has anything to do with evolution they say that it means to mutate, i used to think they just said this because they just didnt know what evolution meant but there are so many writers out there that write about it like this and they are all full grown adults and im a teenager so i probably am wrong and not them

 

Oh, for crying out loud! Here you "believe" in evolution but don't know what it IS! Talk about blind faith! Oh, the irony. Look, do NOT get your view of evolution from movies for God's sake. You need to read some books on evolution by evolutionary biologists. In particular, start with Origin of Species (it's online in several places) and then do Ernst Mayr's What Evolution IS.

 

Here is a definition of evolution for you:

"Thus, evolution, in a broad sense is descent with modification, and often with diversification. Many kinds of systems are evolutionary ... In all such systems there are populations, or groups, of entities; there is variation in one or more characteristics among the members of the population; there is HEREDITARY SIMILARITY between parent and offspring entities; and over the course of generations there may be changes in the proportions of individuals with different characteristics within populations. This process consitutes descent with modification. Populations may become subdivided so that several populations are derived from a COMMON ANCESTRAL POPULATION. If different changes in the proportions of variant individuals transpire in te several populations,the populations DIVERGE, OR DIVERSIFY. ... All these properties of an evolutionary process pertain to populations of organisms, in which there is hereditary transmission of characteristics (based on genes, composed of DNA or, in a few cases, RNA), variation owing to mutation, and sorting of variation by several kinds of processes. Chief among these sorting processes are CHANCE (random variation in the survival or reproduction of different variants), and natural selection (consistent, nonrandom differences among variants in their rates of survival or reproduction). It is natural selection that causes adaptation -- improvement in function. Thus biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms , or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. ... Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans." Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, (1999) pg 4.

 

Evolution is about genetic changes but it is also about the environment setting the potentials that direct the types of changes that will occur.

 

NO! You are talking about natural selection. The environment selects those variations (changes) that work well in that particular environment.

 

Guys, seriously, how can you be so absymally ignorant about evolution and natural selection?

 

For example, antibiotics are chemicals that have eliminated many harmful bacteria while also changing the inner environment so stronger more resistant strong could evolve and gain selective advantage.

 

NO! Antibiotics kill ANY bacteria -- harmful or otherwise. So yes, antibiotics represent a change in environment for the bacteria. Only those bacteria lucky enough to have a variation that makes them resistant to the antibiotic will survive. Being resistant to the antibiotic -- so it doesn't kill you -- is a selective advantage, not "gain selective advantage". Since only the resistant individuals survive, that means the next generation will be descended from those bacteria -- and will inherit the resistance. Thus, resistant bacteria are selected by the environment (antibiotics).

 

Based on this observation of how the environment can affect the type of strains that evolve, maybe we can use this to our advantage. What would happen if we catered to a harmless bacteria that was able to grow faster than all others. This good bacteria could make it harder for harmful strains which try to enter its territory.

 

If you go to the PBS website for their series on evolution, you will find that this is being done with HIV treatment. The key is whether the resistant individuals can reproduce as fast as the non-resistant ones. Since resistance requires more proteins (the ones that confer resistance), the answer is usually (but not always) "no".

 

In HIV treatment the anti-virals are used to knock down the non-resistant HIV and lower the HIV count. Then the anti-virals are discontinued and competition between the resistant and few remaining non-resistant HIV happens, which reduces the non-resistant ones and, again, lowers the total HIV count. Then, when the count goes up and consists of the resistant individuals, then the anti-virals are started again.

 

However, there are many helpful bacteria in the digestive tract, for instance, that the body seems to tolerate without needing to constantly fight. Maybe these have certain characteristics that tell the body these are allies.

 

Since they are in the digestive tract, they are isolated from the immune system! The immune system only "sees" bacteria that are inside the tissues. This is why the most common post-op infection is strep aureus. S. aureus is a common bacteria on the skin, but it doesn't invade the skin to get inside the tissues. However, when S. aureus is accidentally introduced to an open wound during surgery, then it's off to the races and causes a severe infection.

[creato]

Basically, i think evolution is a fairy tale thought up someone to appease people who don't believe in God.

here is one of the reasons why mutations don't support evolution

(1) Mathematical challenges. Problem number one is the mathematical. I won’t dwell on this one, because it’s written up in many books and widely acknowledged by evolutionists themselves as a serious problem for their theory.

 

Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.

 

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.

 

What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.

[ecoli]

Basically, i think evolution is a fairy tale thought up someone to appease people who don't believe in God.

here is one of the reasons why mutations don't support evolution

oh boy... there we go.

 

(1) Mathematical challenges. Problem number one is the mathematical. I won’t dwell on this one, because it’s written up in many books and widely acknowledged by evolutionists themselves as a serious problem for their theory.

well, that's a lie

 

Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.

I don't know if your numbers are exaclty accurate (no source) but so far I'm with you.

 

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.

I don't understand your premise... why do mutations have to be related?

 

Also keeping in mind that these mutations accumulate over millions of years in order to produce new species, and that species do not jump from being a fly to a mammal in a couple of generations. It takes millions and millions of years, and plenty of gradualism.

 

What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.

 

you don't understand the premise of evolution enough to disprove it. Go do some reading and try again.

[MrSandman]

Hey Ecoli does this sound fimiliar? Hehehehe....Yes, it I MrSandman. However I want to ask you and all the diehard posters what you think about this....

 

"Although like likely evolved spontaneously in the environment of early Earth, biologists have concluded that no additional cells are orginationf spontaneously at present. Rather, life on Earth represents a continuous line of descent from those early cells"

 

Source: Biology Eighth Edition Chapter 4.1

 

Authors and Accreditation: Jonathan B. Losos, Harvard University; Kenneth A. Mason, Purdue University; Susan R. Singer, Carleton College; Peter H. Raven, Director, Missouri Botonical Gardens; Engelmann Professor of Botany Washington University;George B. Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Biology Washington University

 

I thought it interesting to think of the chances of the cell occuring spontaniously, yet they aren't changing today.

 

Note: this isn't some creation textbook it's first chapter is all about Darwin.

[creato]

Hey Ecoli does this sound fimiliar? Hehehehe....Yes, it I MrSandman. However I want to ask you and all the diehard posters what you think about this....

 

"Although like likely evolved spontaneously in the environment of early Earth, biologists have concluded that no additional cells are orginationf spontaneously at present. Rather, life on Earth represents a continuous line of descent from those early cells"

 

Source: Biology Eighth Edition Chapter 4.1

 

Authors and Accreditation: Jonathan B. Losos, Harvard University; Kenneth A. Mason, Purdue University; Susan R. Singer, Carleton College; Peter H. Raven, Director, Missouri Botonical Gardens; Engelmann Professor of Botany Washington University;George B. Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Biology Washington University

 

I thought it interesting to think of the chances of the cell occuring spontaniously, yet they aren't changing today.

 

Note: this isn't some creation textbook it's first chapter is all about Darwin.

 

Yes the chances "of the cell ocurring spontaniously" would have to be unreasonably high.

[MrSandman]

You also need to see my other post in Questions about Evolution.

[foodchain]

Yes the chances "of the cell ocurring spontaniously" would have to be unreasonably high.

 

Do you by chance even honestly study biology? I mean to me it seems like your education in biology is grounded in the bible and links to Leviticus really, not much more. Creationists lie, distort and survive on fallacy, while at the same time implying biologists or evolution is the product of some grand plan to destroy Thor the sky lord. I like lord of the rings, its a good movie, but if you want to hate on a theory accepted by science and used as the backbone of biology with an untold amount of evidence and applications, you might want to do some research first.

[creato]

hey aren't you being a little strong there?

[Edtharan]

Basically, i think evolution is a fairy tale thought up someone to appease people who don't believe in God.

Charles Darwin, the guy that thought up evolution was a Christian. When he was younger (before his voyage on the Beagle) he wanted to become a minister in the church. Does this sound like someone who didn't believe in God?

 

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing.

But, if that wavy edge gave them better flight characteristics (used less energy, or was more manoeuvrable to dodge predators), then that fly would likely produce more offspring than others.

 

Lets have a look again at the maths. You only presented one side of the maths there.

 

Ok. If a Pair of flies can produce 10 offspring, and then those 10 offspring produce 10 offspring each, and then follow this for 10 generations, how many flies are we talking about? 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10=10,000,000,000,000. (if each fly were to take up 1/4 cubic centimetres, how much of the Earth would be populated by flies then?)

 

That is only 10 generations. Flies can breed in as little as 14 days (about that for the house fly). So after 140 days (not even a year), there could be that many flies.

 

With a 1 in 1014 chance of related mutations, how many modifications like that could occur? 9,765,625,000 or so. How many base pairs on the house fly genome? Less than that I am sure. The entire genome could be rewritten in that time (140 days).

 

Now, think about the time life has been here on Earth (according to geology and fossils), which is about 4 billion years (1460 billion days) and you can begin to see just how possible that these mutations can have occurred is.

 

What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution. But already at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution, because it just plainly doesn’t work.

This has been presented to you without showing you the other side of the "equation".

 

Lets look at Humans here: Let's assume the average generation time is 25 years (it was shorter in the past, but I am being conservative here). In the past many families usually consisted of many children (around 4 to 5 and more). But again, lets be conservative and only assume that 3 children make it to breeding age and produce their own offspring.

 

So 1 couple becomes 3 couples, becomes 9 couples, becomes 27 couples, becomes 81, becomes 243 couples, becomes 729 couples, becomes 2,187 couples, becomes 6,561 couples, becomes 19,683 couples. This in 10 generations, most people can trace their family tree back this far. This would be about 250 years if we consider a generation time of a conservative 25 years.

 

It becomes 1,162,261,467 couples after 20 generations (or 500 years) and 4,052,555,153,018,976,267 couples after 40 generations (or 1,000) years. This is more people than exist on Earth today. And this is using conservative estimates.

 

Of course there are some complications that reduce this number (the fact that somewhere down the track people that are distantly related will becomes couples), so I wouldn't expect that many people to have lived in the last 1,000 years.

 

Now, extend this back 4 billion years (or even just 6,000 years). We know that animals have had far shorter generation times than the Human 25 years, but even with a generation time of 25 years, there is plenty of "wiggle room" in the numbers to have rewritten a genome many many times over, even if the chances of getting related mutations is very small.

 

The fact is, life is reproductive, exponentially so. Also, evolution is selective and does not rely solely on randomness. This selectiveness (survival of the fittest) coupled with the exponential reproductive nature of living organisms can easily account for any organism.

 

As for the size of the Earth, we are talking about generations here. An organism can be stable over several (thousand) generations, and in that time accumulating mutations in a way that doesn't hinder reproduction. The number of mutations that can accumulate in 1,000 generations is enormous. Even with a 1 in a million mutation, in 10,000,000,000,000 organisms (the house fly example), that brings the odds to 10,000,000 in 1 that it will occur.

[swansont]

Hey Ecoli does this sound fimiliar? Hehehehe....Yes, it I MrSandman. However I want to ask you and all the diehard posters what you think about this....

 

"Although like likely evolved spontaneously in the environment of early Earth, biologists have concluded that no additional cells are orginationf spontaneously at present. Rather, life on Earth represents a continuous line of descent from those early cells"

 

Source: Biology Eighth Edition Chapter 4.1

 

Authors and Accreditation: Jonathan B. Losos, Harvard University; Kenneth A. Mason, Purdue University; Susan R. Singer, Carleton College; Peter H. Raven, Director, Missouri Botonical Gardens; Engelmann Professor of Botany Washington University;George B. Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Biology Washington University

 

I thought it interesting to think of the chances of the cell occuring spontaniously, yet they aren't changing today.

 

Note: this isn't some creation textbook it's first chapter is all about Darwin.

 

(emphasis added)

 

Can you see that the two parts of that sentence are unrelated, and that the latter part is not at all what is mentioned in the quote? (it's actually the opposite) Spontaneously creating a cell (or not) has no relation to cells changing. Which they do (change).

[Klaynos]

Surly the probability of a mutation happening in a foetus, where it will be duplicated over and over again is more important that "related mutations"?

[MrSandman]

I hope you guys figured out my mistakes in the quote, I was tired.

 

I find it interesting that there's is no new forms of cells. I want input!!!!! You guys keep going back to cell mutation. I want to know about why new cells cannot spontaniously form now, not even the simple ones. Like it said in the book. I'm here to learn, so enlighten me. Notice my signature/quote.

 

Here's the corrected quote:

 

"Although life likely evolved spontaneously in the environment of early Earth, biologists have concluded that no additional cells are orginating spontaneously at present. Rather, life on Earth represents a continuous line of descent from those early cells"

 

The whole quote is related nothing in it is seperate. Otherwise it wouldn't have been it's own paragraph.

 

I really need a biologists input on this.

[Edtharan]

I find it interesting that there's is no new forms of cells. I want input!!!!! You guys

 

keep going back to cell mutation. I want to know about why new cells cannot spontaniously form

 

now, not even the simple ones.

Life most likely didn't just form as cells ready to reproduce. It was through complex chemical

 

reactions.

 

Firstly, in today's environment, most of the chemicals that go to form living organisms are

 

actually locked up in living organisms. Imagine that all life on Earth was killed, what kind of

 

slurry of all the chemicals that exist in organisms break down into.

 

Now no new atoms have been created about of nothing, the atoms that exist today (save for a few

 

from impacting asteroids, and certain rocks brought up through volcanism) on Earth existed 4.5

 

(roughly) billions of years ago as well. Our bodies are made up of the atoms from millions upon

 

millions of generations of dead organisms.

 

So, what life has done is to "gobble" up most of the chemicals that would have gone into

 

creating an environment in which the first life forms appeared.

 

Next, living organisms have made vast changes as to the environment of Earth. Back when life

 

first appeared, Oxygen (and therefore Ozone in the atmosphere) was only a trace element in the

 

atmosphere. Without Ozone blocking UV radiation from the Sun, there was a lot more UV reaching

 

the ground.

 

UV is interesting in that it has enough energy to aid in several chemical reactions that are

 

precursors to living organisms. They can break certain chemical bonds (bad for us, but good at

 

the time) and can give enough energy to allow others to form.

 

Also, the gasses that were in the atmosphere and dissolved in the ocean have likewise been

 

changed by living organisms. Some have been removed and others added due to the chemistry of

 

life.

 

Because of these kinds of changes the environment is not the same as when life first appeared.

 

I don't think it is impossible for a new type of organism to spontaneously be produced (as

 

simple as it would be it would likely be an self reproducing amino acid complex - no fully

 

formed and operating cells), but it is extremely unlikely due to the factors mentioned

 

above. But it could happen.

 

Cell like structures can spontaneously form from lipids. Have you ever blown bubbles? This is a

 

membrane that self assembles from basic chemicals, much like how lipids can from cell like

 

structures.

 

Lipids, like detergent, have an oily end that repels water and a hydrophilic end that likes

 

water. The oily ends are attracted to each other and the water liking ends are repelled. They

 

line up in a double layer with the oily ends attached to each other and the water liking ends

 

point outwards (and inwards). If it curves around on it's self then it joins up into a little

 

bag, we call it a cell like structure. It is not a cell as it has none of the other processes

 

that are necessary for life (it is just a lipid bag that contains some water).

 

If the lipid bag just happened to from around some chemicals that produced lipids, then more

 

lipids would be produced and eventually the lipid bag would be too big to hold it's self

 

together and break. It would then split into two or more bags (I have actually done this with

 

soap bubbles - it takes the right kind of soap bubbles and a bit of practice and luck, but you

 

can sort of karate chop them in half - it is an impressive trick if you can pull it off

 

).

 

Lipid bags that are better at this than others will produce more Lipid bags. Eventually there

 

will be competition for the raw chemicals to make lipid bags and the bags that produce more

 

slowly will be out produced.

 

Now, there are other chemicals in the water around these lipid bags, and if they are near by

 

when one of these lipid bags reproduces, then they might be included into the new bag. These

 

inclusions might be harmful (destroying the chemical reactions needed to produce lipids),

 

neutral (has no effect) or benificial (act as catalysts for the reactions, allow new chemicals

 

to enter or waste products to leave the lipid bag, etc).

 

A lot of these kinds of chemical reactions are linked in some process, or the waste products of

 

one can influence the processes of another. If there was a chemical that got included that

 

could regulate several of these other reactions, then it would end up controlling the reactions

 

within a bag. Now it is looking more like a cell.

 

There seems like a lot of "ifs" and "buts" in that argument, however, we know that the basics

 

chemical reactions that I have described do occur and can occur spontaneously in the right

 

environments.

 

The Urey/Miller experiment showed that although life didn't spring into being in their test-

 

tube, a lot of these kinds of precursor reactions did occur. So it is not all that surprising

 

that in the midst of a vast ocean, bathed in UV light that encourages these reactions and full

 

of the elements needed to produce these reactions, that cell like structures (the lipid bags)

 

actually formed and then as they reproduced, so be game evolution through survival of the

 

fittest (the fastest reproducer or the most efficient reproducer).

 

Please note that this is only one of many possible ways that life could get started on Earth. So now that we know how life might have got started (and that we know it did ), we can leave off any discussion about how life got started and foccus instead on what came after: That is evolution.

[MrSandman]

Neat, thanks for explaining. Makes since, however they should keep trying to make cells in the lab through chemical reactions. I know my comment was a little off subject, but I thought if someone could explain, creato would get a better understanding of evolution. Considering that the cell is the basis for evolution, and that my friend is irrefutable. Thanx again for explaining, I'm going to give you as much rep as I can.

[foodchain]

Neat, thanks for explaining. Makes since, however they should keep trying to make cells in the lab through chemical reactions. I know my comment was a little off subject, but I thought if someone could explain, creato would get a better understanding of evolution. Considering that the cell is the basis for evolution, and that my friend is irrefutable. Thanx again for explaining, I'm going to give you as much rep as I can.

 

Well that’s just a bit of a thing there. I wont talk like I am all knowing of the subject I am just going to add my two cents. Have you done much physical chemistry? I mean when I first read about that stuff it kind of got my interest going as in it gave matter more of a definition chemically speaking then just the simple idea of why hydrogen will bond with oxygen. Plus the environments of reactions mechanisms are not all to common in any of these talks nor is simply the energetics of any of it.

 

chemical activation energies in cells is another aspect that can be studied really, so could the idea of molecular cell adhesion and so on. Take a look at this link just for an idea of it all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrosome

 

Now to get past all of that lets think of genetics. Do you know what evo devo is or what they have discovered about life? In relation to evolution what evo devo has happened to find through rigorous empirical investigation is nothing but evidence for evolution. Plus evolution is not just one simple deterministic mechanism which will bring me to another part of my post.

 

Life is temporal, its not a finite closed fully deterministic system. It has those qualities as its derives from physics and chemistry, but what’s evident in concepts like chaos theory and complex systems is evidence in life, which I would suggest on reading up on both.

 

The full reality of evolution is not fully understood, and the reality on top of that is that evolution could take life in completely different direction in time, maybe DNA could become CNA or something with 7 or 12 different types of bases, which if I may add also adds into how life got to where it is in the first place. Evolution may have life now looking like nothing it did in the past. To add to this its hard to gauge the impact something like the virus has had on the course of evolution on earth. To get grounded in more normal terms of how life may have started on earth I would suggest on reading up on protobionts. The produce a structure similar to a modern cell, and also express many of the same behaviors or similar. They can also contain internal environments and will absorb naturally occurring chemicals such as RNA.

 

Lastly one thing always overlooked in all of this is simply the time variable. A million years is a damn hard amount of time in which to envision all the possible realities of something that can occur, I mean in the time spans the evolution takes place in entire mountain ranges can be born and subsequently recycled. To get even more down and dirty the reality of the cell and to study it also evokes aspects found in quantum mechanics.

 

I mean one can make all kinds of speculations currently on life. Such as what role does gene regulation have with evolution, is species and genus more a product of drift and family and order being effected more by something else? Does the evolution of the fly represent the evolution of all other life? What impact did falling trees have on the evolution of life? The point I would like to make is that evolution is backed up by physical or empirical tests and data. Its not just a toy model derived from math. You also have to actually study such for a period of time before more simple and subtle realities of such become noticeable. I mean you probably cant compare in full reality the evolution of tame dogs such as a boxer or a pittbull to the reality of why a lion is a lion. Overall you cant try to get so deterministic with life, which I think is a big mistake lots of people make, that one along with the time aspect.

 

As for statistics, what are the chances of anything? The reality of statistics basically to me make anything that occurs ever highly improbable, from me finding this web forum to posting this post with the various words I chose to use to the reality of what tomorrow will bring in the future for all human actions considered. Statistics are useful, but I have a hard time when statistics and philosophy come together on matters that pertain to realities such as life.

[MrSandman]

It's late. I like your input foodchain. However, I'll have to look at your link tomorrow. Got a Bio Lab tomorrow. Measuring the activity of enzymes under certain conditions. Boy, I never that enzymes could be so neat.

 

If any one has anything to add please do. Just make sure it isn't just off the top of your head.

[lucaspa]

Hey Ecoli does this sound fimiliar? Hehehehe....Yes, it I MrSandman. However I want to ask you and all the diehard posters what you think about this....

 

"Although like likely evolved spontaneously in the environment of early Earth, biologists have concluded that no additional cells are orginationf spontaneously at present. Rather, life on Earth represents a continuous line of descent from those early cells"

 

Source: Biology Eighth Edition Chapter 4.1

 

Actually, the data is that new cells are spontaneously being formed at hydrothermal vents:

 

Yanagawa, H. and K. Kobayashi. 1992. An experimental approach to chemical evolution in submarine hydrothermal. systems. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 22: 147-159.

Syren RM, Sanjur A, Fox SW Proteinoid microspheres more stable in hot than in cold water. Biosystems 1985;17(4):275-80 (protocells at hydrothermal vents)

 

The problem, of course, is that these cells then face life that has 3.8 billion years of evolution behind it. Modern life looks at these newly formed cells and yells "LUNCH" and then devours them.

 

Basically, i think evolution is a fairy tale thought up someone to appease people who don't believe in God.

 

Sorry, but ALL the early evolutionists -- including Darwin -- believed in God.

 

(1) Mathematical challenges. Problem number one is the mathematical. I won’t dwell on this one, because it’s written up in many books and widely acknowledged by evolutionists themselves as a serious problem for their theory.

 

You do need to expand on this. What "mathematical problem"?

 

Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107, a one followed by seven zeroes). That’s fairly rare.

 

This isn't totally true. Mutation rates vary from species to species. It's best to look at the number of mutations/individual. In bacteria the rate is about 0.001. That is, you will only have 1 mutation per 1,000 individuals. Drosophila have about 1 mutation per individual. Humans have about 20.

 

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism.

 

The calculations are GIGO. What you forget is that change is cumulative. Once you have a new favorable mutation, then that mutation increases in frequency in the population by natural selection until EVERY MEMBER of the population has that "mutation". So, when the second mutation appears, the "odds" that it will be present with the first is 1. Virtual certainty.

 

THe problem here is not mathematical, but your ignorance of how evolution works.

 

Life most likely didn't just form as cells ready to reproduce. It was through complex chemical reactions.

 

Actually, fairly simple chemical reactions will give you a cell ready to reproduce! If amino acids are heated in either the dry condition (evaporating tidal pool) or at high temperatures in solution at hydrothermal vents, they will form form proteins. The ordering within the new proteins is not random.

 

When water is added (the tide comes back in) or the proteins move from the very hot water at the vent to cooler water, the proteins spontaneously form cells! This is due to hydrophobic interactions. Voila! A cell. What's more, a cell that can, and does, reproduce.

[Mr Skeptic]

Actually, fairly simple chemical reactions will give you a cell ready to reproduce! If amino acids are heated in either the dry condition (evaporating tidal pool) or at high temperatures in solution at hydrothermal vents, they will form form proteins. The ordering within the new proteins is not random.

 

When water is added (the tide comes back in) or the proteins move from the very hot water at the vent to cooler water, the proteins spontaneously form cells! This is due to hydrophobic interactions. Voila! A cell. What's more, a cell that can, and does, reproduce.

 

That's a fairly impressive claim. I would have expected this to be trumpeted from every newspaper and science magazine if it were true, but I've never heard of this. Further, if that were true, I would have also expected to hear about "new life from scratch in a test tube". I thought abiogenesis was still a mostly unsolved problem.

 

Is this empirical or speculation? Any links?

[foodchain]

That's a fairly impressive claim. I would have expected this to be trumpeted from every newspaper and science magazine if it were true, but I've never heard of this. Further, if that were true, I would have also expected to hear about "new life from scratch in a test tube". I thought abiogenesis was still a mostly unsolved problem.

 

Is this empirical or speculation? Any links?

 

Protobionts are not speculator. You can find all the info you want on them from the web. They do reproduce in that the split. In the case of what you are asking for such as the exact claim its already been giving to you. Here is a brief link on Protobionts from wiki of course.

 

 

Protobionts are organisms that are controversially considered to have possibly been the precursors to prokaryotic cells.

 

A protobiont is an aggregate of abiotically produced organic molecules surrounded by a membrane or a membrane-like structure. It has been proven that protobionts could have spontaneously formed early in the earth's development, according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Protobionts exhibit some of the properties associated with life, including simple reproduction and metabolism, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings. It has been suggested that they are a key step in the origin of life on earth. Experiments by Sidney W. Fox and Aleksandr Oparin have demonstrated that they may be formed spontaneously, in conditions much like what the early Earth is thought to have been like. These experiments formed liposomes and microspheres, which have membrane structure similar to the phospholipid bilayer found in cells.

[MrSandman]

That's interesting because my book was just published last year. Maybe they aren't new in structure, but just new.

 

This is a response to lucaspa.