Mr Skeptic Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 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. [bold added by me] Ah, so they are speculation then, just as I suspected. My BS meter is usually pretty reliable. That's a pathetically small wiki article, with just one source. It is full of maybes and possibly's. A search on the web shows only 3000 results, which also seem to be speculation. The metabolism mentioned in the wiki seems to require feeding with adensine diphosphate, hardly a natural food. Much mention about taking enzymes from living cells and putting them in the mix. Cheaters, cheaters, those things are hard to make. In my humble opinion, it is the fact that so many of the proponents of evolution are obviously biased that makes people doubt their claims.
foodchain Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 [bold added by me] Ah, so they are speculation then, just as I suspected. My BS meter is usually pretty reliable. That's a pathetically small wiki article, with just one source. It is full of maybes and possibly's. A search on the web shows only 3000 results, which also seem to be speculation. The metabolism mentioned in the wiki seems to require feeding with adensine diphosphate, hardly a natural food. Much mention about taking enzymes from living cells and putting them in the mix. Cheaters, cheaters, those things are hard to make. In my humble opinion, it is the fact that so many of the proponents of evolution are obviously biased that makes people doubt their claims. They are not speculation, they exist. There role in abiogenesis is what is speculation, but then again some don’t favor jumping the gun along with insults.
DrDNA Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Actually, fairly simple chemical reactions will give you a cell ready to reproduce! Please, you must tell me where I can learn more of these reactions so, I, like God and Mr Craig Venter, can creat life. It's alive.............. 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. Ah, but how many delicous ice cream flavors can you form in this manner ? Or in other, less gastronomical-like terms, how many would have an iota of biological activity? Or assuming random structures would form, what is the probability than one would be active? How many trillion years would it take to get there? In other words, where is the randomly generated identical copy of my dirty, stinky left tennis shoe? And where did the amino acids come from (not 2 or 3, but all 20 or so)?.
Mr Skeptic Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 They are not speculation, they exist. Maybe. But I haven't actually seen that anyone has seen or made one. According to the wiki, what they made was "liposomes and microspheres". I did a little further reading, and they seem to like adding enzymes from living things to their concoction too, which is a little dubious. There role in abiogenesis is what is speculation, but then again some don’t favor jumping the gun along with insults. What insults?
lucaspa Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 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? Empirical. The reason it wasn't "trumpeted" is because abiogenesis scientists moved the goalposts. Instead, of "life", what they wanted was "modern cell" that made proteins by directed protein synthesis. I first encountered protocells in Lehninger's Biochemistry, the 1970 edition. I didn't think too much about them at the time but encountered them again in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu when I encountered creationism for the first time and was doing reading. Since the 2 major advocates of protocells -- Sidney Fox and Pappellis -- are dead or retired, there isn't much on the web. Pappellis used to have several pages on the Southern Illiniois University website, but they have been removed after his retirement. There is still one good page around: http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html Please, you must tell me where I can learn more of these reactions so, I, like God and Mr Craig Venter, can creat life. It's alive.............. I'll do better than that. I'll give you a recipe and you can make life in your own kitchen. Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/formulation/M5550for.pdf ). They will cost you about $40 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15-60 minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. Or in other, less gastronomical-like terms, how many would have an iota of biological activity? Or assuming random structures would form, what is the probability than one would be active? The probablity is 1 that each protein will have A biological activity. And ALL of them have A biological activity. How many trillion years would it take to get there? If you do this at a hydrothermal vent, about 30 minutes. That is 10^-21 trillion years. And where did the amino acids come from (not 2 or 3, but all 20 or so)?. Amino acids can be made by at least 3 ways: 1. In a thunderstorm in an atmosphere that has carbon dioxide, ammonia, water, nitrogen. In other words, the Miller-Urey reactions done in an oxidizing atmosphere. 2. At hydrothermal vents. Amino acids are being made there today. 3. On comets and delivered to the early earth by soft collisions. Amino acids have been observed on comets today. According to the wiki, what they made was "liposomes and microspheres". I did a little further reading, and they seem to like adding enzymes from living things to their concoction too, which is a little dubious. Which is why Wiki is a dubious source! They talked about "coacervate droplets" as "protocells". Apples and oranges. This is from Pappellis' website and was part of a lecture given to his class in "Origin of Life". I copied it before the page was removed: "In the late 1950s, Fox and his associates were describing how they synthesized thermal proteins (6) and the conversion of these into protocells (proteinoid microspheres) that exhibited the attributes of life. That these were simulations of natural events was to be suggested. By the 1980s, they were considered to be alive (protocells, the smallest unit of protolife)(7). Only the 1996 discovery of life on Mars would eclipse the findings of Yanagawa and Kabayashi (8) that the thermal protein protocell could be synthesized by simulations of hydrothermal systems!! " "Thermal oligo/polypeptides were found to be highly ordered in both primary sequence and composition. Even the number of repeatable units in thermal oligo/polypeptides was greater than that isolated from modem proteins. The self-assembled protocells also showed more order than cells that emerged later by evolution. Thus, thermal oligo/peptides were informed molecules that yielded protocellular units when hydrated (protocellular boundary = wall-membrane), multizymes (metabolically active molecules capable of catalyzing multiple categories of reactions common to metabolism in modem cells), molecules of inheritance (storage and transmission of information needed to sustain life in one and many generations), substrates for growth and reproduction, and the conversion of solar energy to chemical bond energy. The ability of protocellular boundaries to exhibit membrane potentials (action potentials), to function as semipermeable barriers, and sites of syntheses is believed to be due to the amphiphilic natures of thermal oligo/polypeptides and their porous nature enabling diffusion to occur in very short periods of time. " http://mccoy.lib.siu.edu/projects/bio315/section2.htm
Mr Skeptic Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 Empirical. The reason it wasn't "trumpeted" is because abiogenesis scientists moved the goalposts. Instead, of "life", what they wanted was "modern cell" that made proteins by directed protein synthesis. I first encountered protocells in Lehninger's Biochemistry, the 1970 edition. I didn't think too much about them at the time but encountered them again in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu when I encountered creationism for the first time and was doing reading. Or maybe it is because they, like me, realized that the little blobs of amino acids didn't fulfill the requirements for life. And I won't let you ignore that they added enzymes from living things, as well (for their metabolism and stuff). I don't remember seeing any evidence that they can sense their environment. You might as well say fire is alive. Since the 2 major advocates of protocells -- Sidney Fox and Pappellis -- are dead or retired, there isn't much on the web. Pappellis used to have several pages on the Southern Illiniois University website, but they have been removed after his retirement. There is still one good page around:http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html So they didn't manage to convince any researchers. Why should I be convinced? I'll do better than that. I'll give you a recipe and you can make life in your own kitchen.[...] Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. I think he asked how to make life, not protocells. Begging the question is not allowed. The probablity is 1 that each protein will have A biological activity. And ALL of them have A biological activity. If you say so Which is why Wiki is a dubious source! They talked about "coacervate droplets" as "protocells". Apples and oranges. Not my fault. I asked for links that protobionts weren't speculative. That's what I got, and that's what I disassembled. This is from Pappellis' website and was part of a lecture given to his class in "Origin of Life". I copied it before the page was removed:"In the late 1950s, Fox and his associates were describing how they synthesized thermal proteins (6) and the conversion of these into protocells (proteinoid microspheres) that exhibited the attributes of life. That these were simulations of natural events was to be suggested. By the 1980s, they were considered to be alive (protocells, the smallest unit of protolife)(7). Only the 1996 discovery of life on Mars would eclipse the findings of Yanagawa and Kabayashi (8) that the thermal protein protocell could be synthesized by simulations of hydrothermal systems!! " [...] Too bad it got removed. I particularly liked the part about their findings being eclipsed by the discovery of life on mars.
lucaspa Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Or maybe it is because they, like me, realized that the little blobs of amino acids didn't fulfill the requirements for life. And I won't let you ignore that they added enzymes from living things, as well (for their metabolism and stuff). No, they did NOT add enzymes! The thermal proteins turn out to have enzymatic activity! They are not "blobs of amino acids"! They are cells composed of proteins! Pay attention and forget Wiki. I don't remember seeing any evidence that they can sense their environment. The requirement is not "sense their environment" but respond to stimuli. And apparently you missed the part that the protocells respond to stimuli with an action potential identical to nerve cells You might as well say fire is alive. Fire lacks anabolism. Protocells have that. So they didn't manage to convince any researchers. Why should I be convinced? No, they convinced quite a few researchers. If you look at the contributors to Fox's books, you find a large number. However, what happened was that the goalposts got moved. Instead of "life", what researchers wanted to do was get a cell with DNA/RNA directed protein synthesis. IOW, a modern cell. And that is where the research is now. I think he asked how to make life, not protocells. Protocells are alive. If you say so The data says so. Not my fault. I asked for links that protobionts weren't speculative. That's what I got, and that's what I disassembled. Yes, it is your fault. Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source. There is no mechanism for checking the accuracy of the entries, and people can change the entries whenever they want. Now, at the website I gave you, there is this at the beginning "One thing that will make tonight so exciting is a video tape that you will see, .. in which you will see the phenomenon of living cells forming before your eyes. " http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html http://www.springerlink.com/content/dxq91868368083p2/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/k2374p7614351u64/ http://www.thefreelibrary.com/From+proteins+to+protolife:+was+life's+emergence+random+or+guided+by...-a015657614 If you really want to see that protobionts are not speculative, then you have to go to the scientific literature and do hardcopy. Below are some references for you to look up: Fox SW. "Synthesis of life in the lab? Defining a protoliving system." Quarterly Review of Biology, 1991 Jun, 66(2):181-5. Rohlfing, DL, Fox, SW. Catalytic activities of thermal polyanhydro-a-amino acids. Advances Catal. 20: 373-418, 1969. Hydrolysis (energy gaining): p-nitrophenyl acetate Fox, S., Harada, K. Rohlfing, DL The thermal copolymerization of a-amino acids. In Stahmann, MA (ed) Polyamino Acids, Polypeptides, and Proteins (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison) 47-54, 1962 Rohlfing DL and Fox, SW. The catalytic activity of thermal polyanhydro-a-amino acids for the hydrolysis of p-nitrophenyl acetate. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 118: 127-132, 1967. Usdin, VR, Mitz, MA, Killos, PJ. Inhibition and reactivation of the catalytic activity of a thermal a-amino acid copolymer. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 122: 258-261, 1967. p-nitrophenyl phosphate Oshima, T. The catalytic hydrolysis of phosphate ester bonds by thermal polymers of amino acid. Arch. Biochim. Biophys. 126: 478-485, 1968. Decarboxylation Glururonic acid: Fox, SW and Krampitz, G. The catalytic decomposition of glucose in aqueous solution by thermal proteinoids. Nature 203: 1362-134, 1964 Pyruvic acid: Hardebeck, HG, Krampitz, G, Wulf, L. Decarboxylation of pyruvic acid in aqueous solution by thermal proteinoids. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 123: 72-81, 1986. Oxaloacetic acid: Rohlfing, DL THe catalytic decarboxylation of oxaloacetic acid by thermally prepared poly-a-aminoacids. ARch. biochem. Biophys. 118: 468-474, 1967. Deamination Krampitz, G, Haas, W. Baas-Diehl, S. Glutaminsaure-Oxydoreductase-Aktivitat von polyanhydro-a-aminosauren (proteinoiden). Naturwissenschaften 55: 345-346, 1968. Anabolism: Amination: Krampitz, g, Baars-Diehl,S, Haas, W, Nakashima,T. Aminotransferase activity of thermal polylysine. Experientia 24: 140-142, 1968. Kolesnikov, M.P. 1991. Proteinoid microspheres and the process of prebiological, photophosphorylation. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 21: 31-37. ADP + Pi + light yields ATP RNA/DNA: JR Jungck and SW Fox, Synthesis of oligonucleotides by proteinoid microspheres acting on ATP. Naturwissenschaften, 60: 425-427, 1973. Peptides: T Nakashima and SW Fox, Synthesis of peptides from amino acids and ATP with lysine rich proteinoid. J. Mol. Evol. 15: 161-168. 1980. Fox, SW, Jungck, JR, Nakashima, T. From proteinoid microsphere to contemporary cell: formation of internucleotide and peptide bonds by proteinoid particles. Origins of Life 5: 227-237, 1974. Nakashima, T, Fox, SW. Formation of peptides by single or multiple additions of ATP to suspensions of nucleoproteinoid microparticles. BioSystems 14: 151-161, 1981. Paecht-Horowitz M, Katchalsky A. J Synthesis of amino acyl-adenylates under prebiotic conditions. Mol Evol 1973;2(2-3):91-8 Oxidoreductions: H2O2 (catalase) and H2O2 and hydrogen donors (peroxidase reaction) Dose, K, Zaki,L. The peroxidatic and catalase activity of hemoproteinoids. Z. Naterforsch 26b: 144-148, 1971. Photoactivated decarboxylation -- glycoxylic acid, glucuronic acid, pyruvic acid. Wood, A, Hardebeck, HG. Light-enhanced decarboxylations by proteinoids. In Rohlfing, DL and Oparin, AI (eds) Molecular Evolution (Plenum, New York), 233-245, 1972. Hormone: Fox, SW, Wang, C-t. Melanocyte-stimulating hormone activity in in thermal proteins of a-amino acids. Science 160: 547-548, 1968. Compartments within protocells: Brooke S, Fox SW. Compartmentalization in proteinoid microspheres.Biosystems. 1977 Jun;9(1):1-22. Photosynthesis: Bahn PR, Fox SW. Models for protocellular photophosphorylation. Biosystems. 1981;14(1):3-14. Masinovsky Z, Lozovaya GI, Sivash AA, Drasner M. Porphyrin-proteinoid complexes as models of prebiotic photosensitizers. Biosystems 1989;22(4):305-10. Masinovsky Z, Lozovaya GI, Sivash AA. Some aspects of the early evolution of photosynthesis. Adv Space Res 1992;12(4):199-205. Response to stimuli Przybylski AT. Excitable cell made of thermal proteinoids. Biosystems 1985;17(4):281-288. Vaughan G, Przybylski AT, Fox SW. Thermal proteinoids as excitability-inducing materials. Biosystems. 1987;20(3):219-23. Ishima Y, Przybylski AT, Fox SW. Electrical membrane phenomena in spherules from proteinoid and lecithin. Biosystems. 1981;13(4):243-51. Pappelis, A., S. W. Fox, R. Grubbs, and J. Bozzola. 1998. Animate protocells from inanimate thermal proteins: Visualization of the Process. In Exobiology: Matter, Energy, and Information in the Origin and Evolution of Life in the Universe. J. Chela-Flores and F. Raulin, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Pp.195-198. Growth and Reproduction: Fox, SW, McCauley, RJ, Wood, A A model of primitive heterotrophic proliferation. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 20: 773-778, 1967. Fox, SW. Molecular evolution to the first cells. Pure Appld. Chem. 34: 641-669, 1973. Communication: Hsu, LL, Brooke, S, Fox, SW. Conjugation of proteinoid microspheres: a model of primordial communication. Curr. Mod. Biol. (now BioSystems) 4: 12-25, 1971. BTW, Skeptic, if you go back to 1996 it was thought that life had been discovered on Mars. That was the year it was announced that traces of microorganisms were found on a Martian meteorite discovered in Antarctica. And it did overshadow everything else that year. You are using a rhetorical trick. You are trying to ridicule Papellis and say he is wrong in general because, later, it was decided that the evidence wasn't as solid as initially claimed. The controversy is still active. But that isn't valid. In its historical context, the comment is accurate: the "discovery of life on Mars" did overshadow everything else. It is non sequitor to say "because it was decided that the data did not show life on Mars means that Papellis' comments on protocells are also wrong."
Mr Skeptic Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 No, they did NOT add enzymes! The thermal proteins turn out to have enzymatic activity! They are not "blobs of amino acids"! They are cells composed of proteins! Pay attention and forget Wiki. That was in the references given in the wiki, that they did add enzymes. As I said, that was what I was given. The enzymes were added after the creation of the thermal proteins, if it makes you feel better. Do you have a link where they made "live" protocells without adding enzymes. The requirement is not "sense their environment" but respond to stimuli. And apparently you missed the part that the protocells respond to stimuli with an action potential identical to nerve cells I suppose that depends on what you mean by "respond" and "stimuli" Fire lacks anabolism. Protocells have that. I'm believe a few anabolic reactions can happen in a fire. But I get your point. No, they convinced quite a few researchers. If you look at the contributors to Fox's books, you find a large number. However, what happened was that the goalposts got moved. Instead of "life", what researchers wanted to do was get a cell with DNA/RNA directed protein synthesis. IOW, a modern cell. And that is where the research is now. Then why was he complaining that there was almost nothing on the internet after the two people he mentioned died? Protocells are alive. Uh, huh. So you disagree with the consensus, then. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. The data says so. Which data? So it is impossible for a random protein to not have a biological activity? There's a lot of possible proteins and I assure you no one has tested them all, and I doubt anyone who has done some testing will agree with you. Yes, it is your fault. Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source. There is no mechanism for checking the accuracy of the entries, and people can change the entries whenever they want. I never said that article was accurate, only that neither the wiki article I was given, nor the references it gave, supported your position. Now, at the website I gave you, there is this at the beginning "One thing that will make tonight so exciting is a video tape that you will see, .. in which you will see the phenomenon of living cells forming before your eyes. " http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html Apparently others don't agree that these are "living cells". http://www.springerlink.com/content/dxq91868368083p2/ Ah, journal abstracts. That's more reliable then. I added a few bolds to a quote from there: "Thermal polyaspartic acid microspheres appear protocell-like in the sense of being prebiotically plausible lattices or containers that could eventually have been filled with just the right additions of primordial proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and metabolites so as to constitute protocells capable of undergoing further chemical and biological evolution." Not a protocell, in other words. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k2374p7614351u64/ Yes, this one backs up your claims. Apparently, it was even cited twice since it came out in 1994, but I cannot read the full article so I can't say much about it. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/From+proteins+to+protolife:+was+life's+emergence+random+or+guided+by...-a015657614 If you really want to see that protobionts are not speculative, then you have to go to the scientific literature and do hardcopy. Below are some references for you to look up: Fox SW. "Synthesis of life in the lab? Defining a protoliving system." Quarterly Review of Biology, 1991 Jun, 66(2):181-5. Rohlfing, DL, Fox, SW. Catalytic activities of thermal polyanhydro-a-amino acids. Advances Catal. 20: 373-418, 1969. Hydrolysis (energy gaining): p-nitrophenyl acetate Fox, S., Harada, K. Rohlfing, DL The thermal copolymerization of a-amino acids. In Stahmann, MA (ed) Polyamino Acids, Polypeptides, and Proteins (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison) 47-54, 1962 Rohlfing DL and Fox, SW. The catalytic activity of thermal polyanhydro-a-amino acids for the hydrolysis of p-nitrophenyl acetate. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 118: 127-132, 1967. Usdin, VR, Mitz, MA, Killos, PJ. Inhibition and reactivation of the catalytic activity of a thermal a-amino acid copolymer. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 122: 258-261, 1967. p-nitrophenyl phosphate Oshima, T. The catalytic hydrolysis of phosphate ester bonds by thermal polymers of amino acid. Arch. Biochim. Biophys. 126: 478-485, 1968. Decarboxylation Glururonic acid: Fox, SW and Krampitz, G. The catalytic decomposition of glucose in aqueous solution by thermal proteinoids. Nature 203: 1362-134, 1964 Pyruvic acid: Hardebeck, HG, Krampitz, G, Wulf, L. Decarboxylation of pyruvic acid in aqueous solution by thermal proteinoids. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 123: 72-81, 1986. Oxaloacetic acid: Rohlfing, DL THe catalytic decarboxylation of oxaloacetic acid by thermally prepared poly-a-aminoacids. ARch. biochem. Biophys. 118: 468-474, 1967. Deamination Krampitz, G, Haas, W. Baas-Diehl, S. Glutaminsaure-Oxydoreductase-Aktivitat von polyanhydro-a-aminosauren (proteinoiden). Naturwissenschaften 55: 345-346, 1968. Anabolism: Amination: Krampitz, g, Baars-Diehl,S, Haas, W, Nakashima,T. Aminotransferase activity of thermal polylysine. Experientia 24: 140-142, 1968. Kolesnikov, M.P. 1991. Proteinoid microspheres and the process of prebiological, photophosphorylation. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 21: 31-37. ADP + Pi + light yields ATP RNA/DNA: JR Jungck and SW Fox, Synthesis of oligonucleotides by proteinoid microspheres acting on ATP. Naturwissenschaften, 60: 425-427, 1973. Peptides: T Nakashima and SW Fox, Synthesis of peptides from amino acids and ATP with lysine rich proteinoid. J. Mol. Evol. 15: 161-168. 1980. Fox, SW, Jungck, JR, Nakashima, T. From proteinoid microsphere to contemporary cell: formation of internucleotide and peptide bonds by proteinoid particles. Origins of Life 5: 227-237, 1974. Nakashima, T, Fox, SW. Formation of peptides by single or multiple additions of ATP to suspensions of nucleoproteinoid microparticles. BioSystems 14: 151-161, 1981. Paecht-Horowitz M, Katchalsky A. J Synthesis of amino acyl-adenylates under prebiotic conditions. Mol Evol 1973;2(2-3):91-8 Oxidoreductions: H2O2 (catalase) and H2O2 and hydrogen donors (peroxidase reaction) Dose, K, Zaki,L. The peroxidatic and catalase activity of hemoproteinoids. Z. Naterforsch 26b: 144-148, 1971. Photoactivated decarboxylation -- glycoxylic acid, glucuronic acid, pyruvic acid. Wood, A, Hardebeck, HG. Light-enhanced decarboxylations by proteinoids. In Rohlfing, DL and Oparin, AI (eds) Molecular Evolution (Plenum, New York), 233-245, 1972. Hormone: Fox, SW, Wang, C-t. Melanocyte-stimulating hormone activity in in thermal proteins of a-amino acids. Science 160: 547-548, 1968. Compartments within protocells: Brooke S, Fox SW. Compartmentalization in proteinoid microspheres.Biosystems. 1977 Jun;9(1):1-22. Photosynthesis: Bahn PR, Fox SW. Models for protocellular photophosphorylation. Biosystems. 1981;14(1):3-14. Masinovsky Z, Lozovaya GI, Sivash AA, Drasner M. Porphyrin-proteinoid complexes as models of prebiotic photosensitizers. Biosystems 1989;22(4):305-10. Masinovsky Z, Lozovaya GI, Sivash AA. Some aspects of the early evolution of photosynthesis. Adv Space Res 1992;12(4):199-205. Response to stimuli Przybylski AT. Excitable cell made of thermal proteinoids. Biosystems 1985;17(4):281-288. Vaughan G, Przybylski AT, Fox SW. Thermal proteinoids as excitability-inducing materials. Biosystems. 1987;20(3):219-23. Ishima Y, Przybylski AT, Fox SW. Electrical membrane phenomena in spherules from proteinoid and lecithin. Biosystems. 1981;13(4):243-51. Pappelis, A., S. W. Fox, R. Grubbs, and J. Bozzola. 1998. Animate protocells from inanimate thermal proteins: Visualization of the Process. In Exobiology: Matter, Energy, and Information in the Origin and Evolution of Life in the Universe. J. Chela-Flores and F. Raulin, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Pp.195-198. Growth and Reproduction: Fox, SW, McCauley, RJ, Wood, A A model of primitive heterotrophic proliferation. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 20: 773-778, 1967. Fox, SW. Molecular evolution to the first cells. Pure Appld. Chem. 34: 641-669, 1973. Communication: Hsu, LL, Brooke, S, Fox, SW. Conjugation of proteinoid microspheres: a model of primordial communication. Curr. Mod. Biol. (now BioSystems) 4: 12-25, 1971. I definitely cannot read all that, and I doubt you did either. I think I'll take a cheapshot and note that most of these are 20-30 years old, as if the idea lost popularity now that we have more modern stuff to look at it more carefully. BTW, Skeptic, if you go back to 1996 it was thought that life had been discovered on Mars. That was the year it was announced that traces of microorganisms were found on a Martian meteorite discovered in Antarctica. And it did overshadow everything else that year. You are using a rhetorical trick. You are trying to ridicule Papellis and say he is wrong in general because, later, it was decided that the evidence wasn't as solid as initially claimed. The controversy is still active. But that isn't valid. In its historical context, the comment is accurate: the "discovery of life on Mars" did overshadow everything else. It is non sequitor to say "because it was decided that the data did not show life on Mars means that Papellis' comments on protocells are also wrong." I intended to show that the author was biased and not vary careful when accepting big claims. ("life was discovered" rather than "life was claimed to have been discovered"). That is usually enough for a "discussion for the Pope". ---- I did see enough to convince me that thermally generated proteins spontaneously turn into microspheres that look like cells and have some very interesting properties, but I am not convinced they are life. Thank you for all the links, I have a lot more reading to do before I can make up my mind.
lucaspa Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 That was in the references given in the wiki, that they did add enzymes. As I said, that was what I was given. The enzymes were added after the creation of the thermal proteins, if it makes you feel better. Do you have a link where they made "live" protocells without adding enzymes. The original site I posted -- http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html -- did that. Didn't you read it? I suppose that depends on what you mean by "respond" and "stimuli" What everyone means. Nerve cells are stimulated and respond by an action potential. Protocells are stimulated the same way and respond with the same response. I'm believe a few anabolic reactions can happen in a fire. But I get your point. Nope. Fires don't make the chemicals that they then burn. Their metabolism is purely catabolic. Then why was he complaining that there was almost nothing on the internet after the two people he mentioned died? I made the statement because there is a relative dearth of pages on the internet on protocells. Most of the work was done before there was an internet. So by far the bulk of the data is in hardcopy scientific papers. So you disagree with the consensus, then. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. If you want to rely on consensus, go into politics. Science is about agreement with data, not consensus. Claims are evaluated against the data, not on consensual agreement. The data says the protocells are alive. That many people don't want to admit that has nothing to do with the reality. In fact, it looks like most scientists do agree, which is why they have moved onto something else: getting directed protein synthesis. Which data? All the data in the papers I posted and more data in other papers. All of it says the protocells meet the requirements to be "alive". So it is impossible for a random protein to not have a biological activity? There's a lot of possible proteins and I assure you no one has tested them all, and I doubt anyone who has done some testing will agree with you. 1. Proteins are not random the way you are using the term. Proteins made by chemistry have internal ordering due to the R groups. You can't make all possible proteins; the chemistry won't allow it. 2. The people who have worked with thermal proteins/protocells have done a LOT of testing. And that is where "virtual certainty" comes from. Now, you can quibble and say that the probability is 0.999999 but that is "virtually" 1. 3. Can you name anyone that has studied proteins that has claimed the protein had NO biological activity? Remember, there are a lot of biological activities: structural, membrane component, enzyme, etc. The claim may be that the protein did not have a particular, specific biological activity (the one they were testing for), but never NO biological activity at all. I never said that article was accurate, only that neither the wiki article I was given, nor the references it gave, supported your position. You cited it as being accurate to refute the claim. So yes, you did imply it was accurate. Apparently others don't agree that these are "living cells". Correct. However, you also have to criticize their position. They don't get a free ride to being right. Ah, journal abstracts. That's more reliable then. I added a few bolds to a quote from there:"Thermal polyaspartic acid microspheres appear protocell-like in the sense of being prebiotically plausible lattices or containers that could eventually have been filled with just the right additions of primordial proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and metabolites so as to constitute protocells capable of undergoing further chemical and biological evolution." Not a protocell, in other words. Selective quoting. I was hoping you were more honest than that. Guess not. Keep reading. I'll do the bold: "Thermal polyaspartic acid microspheres are extremely simple models of protocells that are more amenable to precise quantitative experimental investigation than the proteinoid microspheres of Sidney W. Fox. " Protocells are made of mixtures of ALL amino acids. These guys confined themselves to just ONE amino acid. So they are making a simplified model of protocells, not protocells themselves! Yes, this one backs up your claims. Apparently, it was even cited twice since it came out in 1994, but I cannot read the full article so I can't say much about it. You didn't read the full article of the previous paper, either, but managed to say "much about it". Double standard anyone? I definitely cannot read all that, and I doubt you did either. Actually, I have. In fact, since I work at a medical school, I had the library get photocopies of them all. I think I'll take a cheapshot and note that most of these are 20-30 years old, as if the idea lost popularity now that we have more modern stuff to look at it more carefully. It's not that they lost popularity, but people decided to move on to the next problem and get directed protein synthesis. People are fascinated in having DNA direct the synthesis of proteins -- as it does in modern cells. What they want to do is find out how directed protein synthesis arose. I intended to show that the author was biased and not vary careful when accepting big claims. ("life was discovered" rather than "life was claimed to have been discovered"). That is usually enough for a "discussion for the Pope". You are confusing apples and oranges, so you aren't going to be able to show anything. When delivering the class, Pappellis took a verbal shortcut and accepted that the claim made by other scientists was true -- as was accepted at the time. Now, Papellis was referring to the claim of life in the Martian meteorite. "discussion for the Pope" concerns protocells, NOT the Martian meteorite. And Pappellis didn't discuss that. That Fox was twice invited to talk to the Pope was in the Harbinger article. Cutting and pasting out of context isn't going to show anything except your bias. Notice that Pappellis is not on the author list of the early papers on protocells. He looked at that body of work and decided, like I have, that it is valid. It is no different than looking at the body of work on evolution and deciding that it is scientifically valid. I did see enough to convince me that thermally generated proteins spontaneously turn into microspheres that look like cells and have some very interesting properties, but I am not convinced they are life. I hate to deflate your ego, but it doesn't matter if you are convinced. After all, there are people out there that aren't convinced humans really landed on the moon or even that the theory of heliocentrism is correct! People can refuse to be convinced by data for any number of emotional reasons. What needs to be done is to show how the protocells are NOT alive. What does the concept of "life" do that protocells don't? Fox's competitors in the abiogenesis field decided that "life" had to have directed protein synthesis. This wasn't part of their criteria before the protocell work. It was added because the protocells fulfilled the original criteria of what it took for an entity to be "alive". You can do the same thing if you want. Or you can invent some other criteria after first determining that protocells don't fulfill it. Since we are in "people that think evolution is a fake" thread, I will note that many people think evolution is wrong because "we never see a cat turn into a dog". Of course, that is not a requirement to be evolution. That was added because they already knew the requirement couldn't be met. Many others think "evolution" is wrong because "we have never seen life come from non-life", thinking that criteria has not been met. So, are you going to do the same thing?
thedarkshade Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 They are so many fact that deny the evolution, evolution itself denies evolution, and we still blindly believe on it. How irrational mankind can be! First of all I just want to clarify an issue! MUTATIONS! I've been reading all those replies and I find it difficult to believe how can "scientists" think and say that the mutations have contributed to evolution! This is insane! To deny this thing all you need is very very basic knowledge about genetics. Mutations are changes that happen during replication (DNA synthesis), transcription (RNA synthesis) and translation (protein synthesis). But one thing we should understand is that MUTATIONS ARE ALWAYS NEGATIVE!! There still hasn't been A SINGLE case when mutations have had positive effects in that organism when they happened! From the foundation of the genetics, for more than 50 years scientists have been trying to cause, experiment or observe a positive mutation but they always ended up failing. This is because there are no POSITIVE MUTATIONS. Just think of some mutations like Down's Syndrome, Condiodistrophy, Albinism etc, they're positive right???!!! One scientist used a really good expression to illustrate this case "The hasn't been a single case when mutations have contributed positively in the development of the organism. This is like an earthquake to have positive effects to a city!" And he's actually right! So how could organisms evolve in a higher scale of development by mutations when the word "positive" is absolutely contrary to mutations! Another impossible maze for evolutionists! How did mammals appear and what happened to reptiles? When it comes to this evolutionists usually have only one thing to lean on, and that is Archeopterics! They say that this creature was the "bridge" between reptiles and mammals! And they failed again here, because Archeopterics was warm-blooded, which means a mammal. And yet evolution cannot explain the pass reptile-mammal! A very interesting quotation about this issue is: "The passing phase between reptiles and mammals is still a mystery! This is just like a play when all the key roles are taken by reptiles and the curtains suddenly go down. And when the play starts again the key roles now are played by mammals!" Yet another impossible maze for evolution! LAND-WATER How do evolutionist explain this? They do it but still using a failed example. And the example is coelacanth. Coelacanth is oldest specie of fish living. When it was first discovered, this was a great breakthrough for evolution because coelacanth is thought to have a weak walking mechanism. But after the capture of more coelacanths, the conclusions say that it is a fish that lives in deep water and never goes higher than 180m. What is ridiculous about this land-water pass is the original example used by Darwin! And guess what he said:"I see no barrier for a bear to be converted into a whale by jumping into water" For the love of God how can a thing like this happen! Explain it evolutionists! Then another blockade for evolution is Cambrian Explosion! To not make this more boring I'll just use a very simple, convincing example! Evolutionists say that mankind has evolved from apes, and that the Homo-Sapiens first appeared about 60000 years ago. Then how do the evolutionists explain the discovery of a 1.6 million year old man footstep? Then all those scandals with falsified fossils and skulls (which I would not like to mention). And if mankind evolved from apes, then how come that not a single man has evolved from an ape for all this time that mankind has been present? CONCLUSION : E V O L U T I O N I S F A K E I completely agree with you. Evolution means reaching a higher scale of development, more complicated, more advanced. And according to evolution these advances happen by mutations (well according to neo-darwinists), but mutations only have negative effects, never never never positive. Then how come NEGATIVE mean ADVANCE? And also that the probability for creating any new biological structure or any new organ to a organism from mutations goes far far beyond the possible mathematical probability (10 followed by 50 zeros). Darwin itself wasn't sure its own theory and he always used "IF" when he referred to his theory! Isn't all this convincing???!!!
foodchain Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 They are so many fact that deny the evolution, evolution itself denies evolution, and we still blindly believe on it. How irrational mankind can be! First of all I just want to clarify an issue! MUTATIONS! I've been reading all those replies and I find it difficult to believe how can "scientists" think and say that the mutations have contributed to evolution! This is insane! To deny this thing all you need is very very basic knowledge about genetics. Mutations are changes that happen during replication (DNA synthesis), transcription (RNA synthesis) and translation (protein synthesis). But one thing we should understand is that MUTATIONS ARE ALWAYS NEGATIVE!! There still hasn't been A SINGLE case when mutations have had positive effects in that organism when they happened! From the foundation of the genetics, for more than 50 years scientists have been trying to cause, experiment or observe a positive mutation but they always ended up failing. This is because there are no POSITIVE MUTATIONS. Just think of some mutations like Down's Syndrome, Condiodistrophy, Albinism etc, they're positive right???!!!One scientist used a really good expression to illustrate this case "The hasn't been a single case when mutations have contributed positively in the development of the organism. This is like an earthquake to have positive effects to a city!" And he's actually right! So how could organisms evolve in a higher scale of development by mutations when the word "positive" is absolutely contrary to mutations! Another impossible maze for evolutionists! How did mammals appear and what happened to reptiles? When it comes to this evolutionists usually have only one thing to lean on, and that is Archeopterics! They say that this creature was the "bridge" between reptiles and mammals! And they failed again here, because Archeopterics was warm-blooded, which means a mammal. And yet evolution cannot explain the pass reptile-mammal! A very interesting quotation about this issue is: "The passing phase between reptiles and mammals is still a mystery! This is just like a play when all the key roles are taken by reptiles and the curtains suddenly go down. And when the play starts again the key roles now are played by mammals!" Yet another impossible maze for evolution! LAND-WATER How do evolutionist explain this? They do it but still using a failed example. And the example is coelacanth. Coelacanth is oldest specie of fish living. When it was first discovered, this was a great breakthrough for evolution because coelacanth is thought to have a weak walking mechanism. But after the capture of more coelacanths, the conclusions say that it is a fish that lives in deep water and never goes higher than 180m. What is ridiculous about this land-water pass is the original example used by Darwin! And guess what he said:"I see no barrier for a bear to be converted into a whale by jumping into water" For the love of God how can a thing like this happen! Explain it evolutionists! Then another blockade for evolution is Cambrian Explosion! To not make this more boring I'll just use a very simple, convincing example! Evolutionists say that mankind has evolved from apes, and that the Homo-Sapiens first appeared about 60000 years ago. Then how do the evolutionists explain the discovery of a 1.6 million year old man footstep? Then all those scandals with falsified fossils and skulls (which I would not like to mention). And if mankind evolved from apes, then how come that not a single man has evolved from an ape for all this time that mankind has been present? CONCLUSION : E V O L U T I O N I S F A K E I completely agree with you. Evolution means reaching a higher scale of development, more complicated, more advanced. And according to evolution these advances happen by mutations (well according to neo-darwinists), but mutations only have negative effects, never never never positive. Then how come NEGATIVE mean ADVANCE? And also that the probability for creating any new biological structure or any new organ to a organism from mutations goes far far beyond the possible mathematical probability (10 followed by 50 zeros). Darwin itself wasn't sure its own theory and he always used "IF" when he referred to his theory! Isn't all this convincing???!!! I would say you know close to nothing about what you are talking about really. I don’t mean to be mean but to say mutation=death for an organism is just patently false in every empirical regard. Scientists do forced evolution studies in the lab on simple bacteria that shows how mutability allows life to adapt to a changing environment. The point being is mutation is not just one type of mutation or the only mechanism of evolution really. As for energy building up and becoming more complex then obviously you don’t believe in nucleosynthesis either, or chemistry, or physics, or science, in fact you might as well come out and say you don’t believe in reality, DNA, phylogeny, the list could go on. I think you should redo your statement but obviously that cant be done because you surely lack any drive to get proper education on the subject obviously from some personal slant or bias. Its quite pathetic really.
shadowacct Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 I'm getting really tired of this.... this evolution vs. creation debate reminds me of Psalm 119. It seems to last forever . There also is one big difference. Psalm 119 has something to tell. What about this debate??
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 They are so many fact that deny the evolution, evolution itself denies evolution, and we still blindly believe on it. How irrational mankind can be! First of all I just want to clarify an issue! MUTATIONS! I've been reading all those replies and I find it difficult to believe how can "scientists" think and say that the mutations have contributed to evolution! This is insane! To deny this thing all you need is very very basic knowledge about genetics. Mutations are changes that happen during replication (DNA synthesis), transcription (RNA synthesis) and translation (protein synthesis). But one thing we should understand is that MUTATIONS ARE ALWAYS NEGATIVE!! There still hasn't been A SINGLE case when mutations have had positive effects in that organism when they happened! http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html Another impossible maze for evolutionists! How did mammals appear and what happened to reptiles? When it comes to this evolutionists usually have only one thing to lean on, and that is Archeopterics! They say that this creature was the "bridge" between reptiles and mammals! And they failed again here, because Archeopterics was warm-blooded, which means a mammal. And yet evolution cannot explain the pass reptile-mammal! So you're saying "it can't be a transition between a mammal and a reptile because it has mammal characteristics." Great. Think that one over again, will you? To not make this more boring I'll just use a very simple, convincing example! Evolutionists say that mankind has evolved from apes, and that the Homo-Sapiens first appeared about 60000 years ago. Then how do the evolutionists explain the discovery of a 1.6 million year old man footstep? Then all those scandals with falsified fossils and skulls (which I would not like to mention). http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC052.html http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html And if mankind evolved from apes, then how come that not a single man has evolved from an ape for all this time that mankind has been present? Because it takes a long time. And also that the probability for creating any new biological structure or any new organ to a organism from mutations goes far far beyond the possible mathematical probability (10 followed by 50 zeros). http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html Darwin itself wasn't sure its own theory and he always used "IF" when he referred to his theory! We don't care what Darwin said. We care about the evidence. Isn't all this convincing???!!! No.
Mr Skeptic Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 The original site I posted -- http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html -- did that. Didn't you read it? Yes. Nope. Fires don't make the chemicals that they then burn. Their metabolism is purely catabolic. That's not what I said. Most living things don't make the chemicals they get their energy from either. If you want to rely on consensus, go into politics. Science is about agreement with data, not consensus. Claims are evaluated against the data, not on consensual agreement. The data says the protocells are alive. That many people don't want to admit that has nothing to do with the reality. In fact, it looks like most scientists do agree, which is why they have moved onto something else: getting directed protein synthesis. I should have been more specific. The scientific consensus, including the definition of "alive". Words change, I guarantee that "atom" now does not mean what "atom" meant a few thousand years ago, even though it refers to the exact same thing. 3. Can you name anyone that has studied proteins that has claimed the protein had NO biological activity? Remember, there are a lot of biological activities: structural, membrane component, enzyme, etc. The claim may be that the protein did not have a particular, specific biological activity (the one they were testing for), but never NO biological activity at all. How about all the denatured enzymes? The broken human vitamin C pathway? Does "takes up space" count as a biological activity? Selective quoting. I was hoping you were more honest than that. Guess not. Keep reading. I'll do the bold: "Thermal polyaspartic acid microspheres are extremely simple models of protocells that are more amenable to precise quantitative experimental investigation than the proteinoid microspheres of Sidney W. Fox. " What does that matter? Their being simple doesn't make them any more alive. Protocells are made of mixtures of ALL amino acids. These guys confined themselves to just ONE amino acid. So they are making a simplified model of protocells, not protocells themselves! Yes, that is kind of impressive. You didn't read the full article of the previous paper, either, but managed to say "much about it". Double standard anyone? The other paper didn't support your position (nor negate it), and said so right in the abstract. This one did. Actually, I have. In fact, since I work at a medical school, I had the library get photocopies of them all. Well, there goes my snarky remark about the papers being old. Now I can say you are old instead I hate to deflate your ego, but it doesn't matter if you are convinced. Especially not to me or you. Fox's competitors in the abiogenesis field decided that "life" had to have directed protein synthesis. This wasn't part of their criteria before the protocell work. It was added because the protocells fulfilled the original criteria of what it took for an entity to be "alive". You can do the same thing if you want. Or you can invent some other criteria after first determining that protocells don't fulfill it. Oooh, a conspiracy to redifine life! Since we are in "people that think evolution is a fake" thread, I will note that many people think evolution is wrong because "we never see a cat turn into a dog". Of course, that is not a requirement to be evolution. That was added because they already knew the requirement couldn't be met. Many others think "evolution" is wrong because "we have never seen life come from non-life", thinking that criteria has not been met. So, are you going to do the same thing? Well, evolution does claim huge, positive structural changes over even huger periods. Those haven't been observed (in living things), and some people don't think that can be extrapolated from the smaller changes that are observed. If such changes are being observed, the aren't noticed (WTF platypus)
foodchain Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Yes. The definition of life has not matured into something static yet. Personally I find the definition of life lacking the virus to be problematic. IF the virus is not alive then what is it, and what else in nature could you look at in relation to a virus and not call life? Protobionts have similar qualities or functions found in modern life, key to me being the idea it can reproduce in a crude manner and maintain an eternal environment. If by going for evidence about the origin of life on earth I don’t think anything else currently exists, naturally occurring, to use it its place. If by chance that reality dictates a scientist is currently wrong on a concept or line of thinking or hypothesis, should the scientist ignore this to keep the integrity of the currently lacking model intact?
Edtharan Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 They are so many fact that deny the evolution, evolution itself denies evolution, and we still blindly believe on it. How irrational mankind can be! First of all I just want to clarify an issue! MUTATIONS! I've been reading all those replies and I find it difficult to believe how can "scientists" think and say that the mutations have contributed to evolution! This is insane! To deny this thing all you need is very very basic knowledge about genetics. Mutations are changes that happen during replication (DNA synthesis), transcription (RNA synthesis) and translation (protein synthesis). But one thing we should understand is that MUTATIONS ARE ALWAYS NEGATIVE!! There still hasn't been A SINGLE case when mutations have had positive effects in that organism when they happened! From the foundation of the genetics, for more than 50 years scientists have been trying to cause, experiment or observe a positive mutation but they always ended up failing. This is because there are no POSITIVE MUTATIONS. Just think of some mutations like Down's Syndrome, Condiodistrophy, Albinism etc, they're positive right???!!!One scientist used a really good expression to illustrate this case "The hasn't been a single case when mutations have contributed positively in the development of the organism. This is like an earthquake to have positive effects to a city!" And he's actually right! So how could organisms evolve in a higher scale of development by mutations when the word "positive" is absolutely contrary to mutations! Another impossible maze for evolutionists! How did mammals appear and what happened to reptiles? When it comes to this evolutionists usually have only one thing to lean on, and that is Archeopterics! They say that this creature was the "bridge" between reptiles and mammals! And they failed again here, because Archeopterics was warm-blooded, which means a mammal. And yet evolution cannot explain the pass reptile-mammal! A very interesting quotation about this issue is: "The passing phase between reptiles and mammals is still a mystery! This is just like a play when all the key roles are taken by reptiles and the curtains suddenly go down. And when the play starts again the key roles now are played by mammals!" Yet another impossible maze for evolution! LAND-WATER How do evolutionist explain this? They do it but still using a failed example. And the example is coelacanth. Coelacanth is oldest specie of fish living. When it was first discovered, this was a great breakthrough for evolution because coelacanth is thought to have a weak walking mechanism. But after the capture of more coelacanths, the conclusions say that it is a fish that lives in deep water and never goes higher than 180m. What is ridiculous about this land-water pass is the original example used by Darwin! And guess what he said:"I see no barrier for a bear to be converted into a whale by jumping into water" For the love of God how can a thing like this happen! Explain it evolutionists! Then another blockade for evolution is Cambrian Explosion! To not make this more boring I'll just use a very simple, convincing example! Evolutionists say that mankind has evolved from apes, and that the Homo-Sapiens first appeared about 60000 years ago. Then how do the evolutionists explain the discovery of a 1.6 million year old man footstep? Then all those scandals with falsified fossils and skulls (which I would not like to mention). And if mankind evolved from apes, then how come that not a single man has evolved from an ape for all this time that mankind has been present? CONCLUSION : E V O L U T I O N I S F A K E I completely agree with you. Evolution means reaching a higher scale of development, more complicated, more advanced. And according to evolution these advances happen by mutations (well according to neo-darwinists), but mutations only have negative effects, never never never positive. Then how come NEGATIVE mean ADVANCE? And also that the probability for creating any new biological structure or any new organ to a organism from mutations goes far far beyond the possible mathematical probability (10 followed by 50 zeros). Darwin itself wasn't sure its own theory and he always used "IF" when he referred to his theory! Isn't all this convincing???!!! Where to start... 1) Not all mutations are negative. It stands to reason that if a mutation can change the letters of DNA to be one thing, then it is possible that it could randomly change it back (or to it). The thing is - it is completely random. If it was only bad, then this would not be completely random. Now, the chances of a helpful mutation appearing is quite small, but it is possible (remember if a mutation could change a G to an A then it must also be able to change an A to a G, or all DAN would end up as a single letter type). This means that mutations can be "reversed". So what is bad can be turned into good. So, your claim that it can't happen is completely wrong. And also that the probability for creating any new biological structure or any new organ to a organism from mutations goes far far beyond the possible mathematical probability (10 followed by 50 zeros) 2) Well first you say that it is impossible (which I refuted above), but now you are saying it is possible. Which is it? Well Evolution says that new and helpful features can be evolved. You give certain statistics 1 in 1*10^50 chance of it happening. Where did you get these statistics? Would a feature that only required the mutation of a single gene have a greater, lesser or equal chance than one that required several genes to be mutated? As a reliable "statistic" you have provided no connect in which we need to make sense of it. On its own, that statistic is pretty meaningless. However, lest assume (for the sake of argument) that it does have some meaning. Take the common house fly. They can reproduce approximately every 12 to 14 days and a female can lay over 9,000 eggs. So 9,000 each generation from every 2 parents. Over summer (3 months which equals around 90 days), divide that by the generation time of 14 days gives 6 (a bit more really) generations. If all 9,000 flys survive, that would be 9,000 * 9,000 * 9,000 * 9,000 * 9,000 * 9,000= 59,049,000,000,000,000,000. That is only over one breeding season in one year. I'll leave it up to you to do the maths, but how many flys might have existed in your lifetime? Even if only 5% of the flys survive to breed, how many then? Given 1,000 years, how many flys are there? Life reproduces exponentially. If each animal was good enough to survive to breeding (that is evolution did not exist), then there would be (after only say 100 years), far too many creatures to be able to survive on this planet (I estimate that it would actually exceed the volume and mass of the earth by several times). Something must be killing off those animals that don't make it to breeding age. Could this be the fact that mutations usually cause animals to survive poorly? What if one pair of flys produced offspring that allowed 6% of them to survive to breeding age? Then this pair of flys would have more offspring able to breed, so there would be more new flys with this inherited trait. Lets work it out: Starting with 1 pair and each pair produces 9,000 eggs but only 5% survive to breed. This gives us 450 breeders from each pair (this is assuming no in breeding) and each pair giving us a further 450 breeders. Over 6 generations this gives: 450 * 450 * 450 * 450 * 450 * 450 = 8,303,765,625,000,000. Now if we look at the 6% breeders: 9,000 * 6% = 540. 6 generations = 540 * 540 * 540 * 540 * 540 * 540 = 24,794,911,296,000,000. That is over 16,00,000,000,000,00 more! That is only with a 1% increase in successful breeding rate over one breeding season in one year! Life reproduces exponentially. This is important because a small increase leads to a huge difference. There still hasn't been A SINGLE case when mutations have had positive effects in that organism when they happened! This is flat out wrong. There have been many cases where mutations have had positive effects. Each year pesticide companies spend millions of dollars in researching new pesticides. Why woudl they throw money away like this if there was no reason? The shareholders would be up in arms. These pesticides have never before existed in nature so the pests should have no defences against them (that is no genes coding for defences against that particular chemical) as they have never before needed any defences against them. However, the pests will experience mutations. This will occasionally give one of them a resistance to these chemicals. These will survive and then they will be able to breed (whereas all the others have been killed). Their offspring survive and because they inherited the resistance form their parents, they can survive the next dosing of pesticides and then breed. Generation after generation go on like this, sometimes the mutations reduce the resistance and these don't go on to breed (or produce less offspring), usually there is no significant mutation (that effects the breeding potential of the generations) and these go on as normal. However, occasionally, rate though it is, they mutate again, giving increased resistance (maybe the mutation was to code for a protein that neutralises the pesticide and not they produce more of the protein - doubling of a gene sequence is a known form of mutation), these then have a higher resistance and so produce more and offspring than their parents or the ones with the reduced pesticide resistance. Maybe this is just a 1% increase overall in survival rate, but as you could see with the flys, 1% can be a big advantage. Eventually, this pesticide is just not able to kill enough of the pests to be useful any more. If evolution could not produce new and positive effects, like the resistance to a toxin (pesticide) that had never before existed in nature, then how come pesticide companies have to spend so much money in researching new pesticides? And, that old pesticides stop working? The situation with pesticides and pests is a perfect example of Evolution in Action. It actually proves that evolution is occuring. If evolution didn't occur, then a single type of pesticide would eventually be able to wipe out it's target species in no time at all. Another impossible maze for evolutionists! How did mammals appear and what happened to reptiles? When it comes to this evolutionists usually have only one thing to lean on, and that is Archeopterics! They say that this creature was the "bridge" between reptiles and mammals! "Archaeopteryx" (for the correct spelling) is a link between Dinosaurs and Birds. The name actually means: Ancient Feather or Ancient Wing (archaios means ancient and pteryx means wing or feather). It is not a link between reptiles and Mammals. What you probably are wanting is a Cynodont. Like mammals, they had fur, and like mammals they very likely produced milk (you can tell by the juveniles teeth). But, like reptiles their back bone flexed side to side (unlike mammals that flexes front to back), among other traits that are typically seen as reptilian. They are not a "Mammal", but neither are they a "Reptile". They are in fact a "transition" species (actually all species are a transition species if you think about it). But going back to Archaeopteryx: It displays features of Birds, namely feathers. But how many birds do you know that have teeth? How many birds do you know that have claws on their wings? Actually there is one bird that I have heard of, but only in the juveniles (I can't remember it's name though). So it is not quite a bird, but it is not quite a reptile. Sounds like a transition species to me. How do evolutionist explain this? They do it but still using a failed example. And the example is coelacanth. The Coelacanth did not evolve into land animals. The Coelacanth is a modern animals and an ancestor of it would have evolved into both land animals and the modern Coelacanth. This ancestor species might have had very different behaviours than the modern Coelacanth. It might have existed nearer to the surface for one thing. Also, the Coelacanth is only one possibility. It might have been a related species, or even only a distantly related species. The Coelacanth just looks very similar to what the fossil ancestors of land vertebrates looked like. However, due to its similarities, it is quite likely that they are related (but there have been around 360,000,000 years of evolution between the amphibian ancestor and the modern Coelacanth.
CDarwin Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Where to start... "Archaeopteryx" (for the correct spelling) is a link between Dinosaurs and Birds. The name actually means: Ancient Feather or Ancient Wing (archaios means ancient and pteryx means wing or feather). It is not a link between reptiles and Mammals. What you probably are wanting is a Cynodont. Like mammals, they had fur, and like mammals they very likely produced milk (you can tell by the juveniles teeth). But, like reptiles their back bone flexed side to side (unlike mammals that flexes front to back), among other traits that are typically seen as reptilian. They are not a "Mammal", but neither are they a "Reptile". They are in fact a "transition" species (actually all species are a transition species if you think about it). I always have to giggle a bit when Creationists talk about the reptile-mammal transition, becuse it's one instance where the fossil record is almost too good. We have such an almost continuous transition between the synapsid reptiles and mammals that it's impossible to define the "first mammal" in anything but an arbitrary way.
Ophiolite Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 The discussion between lucaspa and Mr Skeptic interests me. I am, however, disappointed that lucaspa has turned an opportunity to inform into one in which he proselytises with all the vigour and blinkered viewpoint of a creationist. Cells and life are terms that have particular meanings within the scientific community. For some reason you feels a need to have his protobiont assembalges be considerd as cells which are alive. How much more productive to accept them as what they are: probable forerunners of true cells that can afford deep insights into the origin of life. I think we could have a more intriguing discussion around the next stage in the emergence of a complex prokaryote rather than a somewhat pointless battle over misapplication of terminology.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now