Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Js.Krulicki
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 76
Evolution.Page 4 of 96    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
To the OP. It's not as bad as you think. Teachers in Canadian, Catholic Secondary Schools have been teaching evolution and it's theories since at least 2000. To with hold the information from students is a product of the community, region, and cultural designation.

We'll all come around eventually (and most likely still end up looking at God for answers).
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 77
Evolution.
Posted: 7/25/2009 2:35:46 PM
You can't use Robert Shapiro as a source. He is a creationist and he is not fit to do peer reviewed studies. The reason being is that creationists have absolutely NO proof for their claim, but they instill the highest level of skepticism if the study could prove evolution. What this means, is that they have the burden of proof SO HIGH for evolution that no matter what, it could NEVER be proven to them.. yet their burden of proof for creationism is near non-existent to the point that they are considered a VERY biased source. An example of this would be similar to saying
"Creationism is real and not evolution"

"No, evolution and abiogenesis explains why life is here"

"Well, where is your proof for your claim? I need ALL the transitional fossils that have ever appeared, I need you to recreate abiogenesis in the lab and I need to see a elephant give birth to a monkey!"

"Well, where is your evidence?"

"I don't need any... I have faith"


Great logic there eh? In order to be trustworthy, the burden of proof must be equal for BOTH SIDES.
 BumFluff122
Joined: 4/4/2009
Msg: 78
Evolution.
Posted: 7/26/2009 9:03:07 AM
Actually they have made RNA in the lab from non organic material. RNA contains the exact same components as DNA does only it's single stranded. More than likely RNA then evolved from it's single strandedness .

Edit: Damn I was beaten to it
 killene
Joined: 3/28/2009
Msg: 79
Evolution.
Posted: 7/26/2009 9:34:57 AM
Bottom line is that both creationism and evolution are currently considered theories. Why not just teach both and satisfy both sectors.
 CChauncey
Joined: 5/22/2009
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/26/2009 9:46:36 AM
Why stop at the Jewish creation myth when there are so many others to teach our children.

http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/26/2009 9:49:30 AM
Because creationism is NOT science and not a scientific theory. It should be presented in science courses as a prime example of false claims and what science is not, but not as a legitimate alternative.

Dwayne T Gish' "Evolution - The challenge of the fossil record" is used as such in a university course "Vertebrate Paleontology". It doesn't even take any instruction or knowledge of logical fallacies to see how laughably bad it is as "science". The general public, however, can be a lot more gullible.

 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 82
Evolution.
Posted: 7/26/2009 10:22:18 AM

Bottom line is that both creationism and evolution are currently considered theories. Why not just teach both and satisfy both sectors.


No - bottom line is that evolution is SUPPORTED by a evidence from a wide range of fields, from biology to paleontology through to virology. Creationism is not supported by anything, and only seeks to cast doubt on everything that's been done thus far.

As I've said in other threads - if you want to teach Creation, do so in a Comparative Religions class where it belongs... it has no place passing itself off as a science.
 BumFluff122
Joined: 4/4/2009
Msg: 83
Evolution.
Posted: 7/26/2009 12:35:58 PM

Bottom line is that both creationism and evolution are currently considered theories. Why not just teach both and satisfy both sectors.


There is a major difference in a scientific theory, which evolution is, and a regular every day theory. Creationism wouldn't even make it as a scientific hypothesis.
 whothehellknows
Joined: 7/23/2006
Msg: 84
Evolution.
Posted: 7/26/2009 10:40:11 PM
Evolution is not repressed in public schools at all. In many private schools, yes. It is either repressed or taught in a manner that disregards the scientific foundation for it.

The big problem isn't evolution being not being taught, but things like intelligent design/creationism being taught as some form of scientific theory which it is not. But we also live in a country where more people are concerned with who wins American Idol or Survivor, so it's really no surprise.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/27/2009 4:46:53 PM
frogo;

yes, life was inevitable, was the answer I sermised.

so, these chemicals that the stars form by fusion etc. [sounds like no big deal] end up on all planets, I presume, kind of itching to arrange them selves in the proper order to form life, and some how start reproducing, and turn into higher life.

of course atmosphere etc. all has to be there. [I GREATLY simplifyed the requirements]

thanks for your time.
 Flaman49
Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 86
Evolution.
Posted: 7/27/2009 7:48:00 PM

posted by: OMGWTF
Uh huh. But where'd the first spec of goo evolve from? Abiotic processes? Okay, but where'd that goo evolve from? [/QUOTE]

OMG are you kidding me? Google Dr Stanley Miller. Do some reading on pre biotic chemistry. Early earth...4.5 billion years ago. then a cooling period. atmosphere made up of oxygen, hydrogen, methane, amonia. lots of volcanic and lightning activity. So you have a billion years of lightning firing thru an atmosphere of those gases creating amino acids in the oceans. Once you have all that mixing it up together..amino acids, oxygen, hydrogen, water..your gonna have life. And without supernatural intervention. Dr Miller did an experiment to duplicate the early pre biotic conditions of earth, and was able to produce at least 20 different amino acids. Thats how you get life from nothing. Single celled organisms form fist...a million years later more complex organisms. Your problem I think is your too impatient to wait. You want the whole deal proved in front of your eyes in a matter of hours or less. And since you cant see it your going with the only remaining explanation...goddidit!
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/27/2009 8:12:01 PM

of course atmosphere etc. all has to be there.

For US it does, but that's not necessarily true for life everywhere.

Regardless, it sounds as if you're falling back on the whole "unlikely random event" thing, which is still fallacious. Life would seem to be more or less inevitable where there is liquid water [and potentially under various other circumstances]. Titan and Mars could possibly confirm this, as both have a history of liquid water. The key though, is that you're looking at from a purely anthropocentric point of view, as if life on Earth is the only thing which counts for probabilities. It isn't. Consider the 300+ exoplanets we know of so far, which lack what we consider a good environment. Then consider the countless billions more planets just within our own galaxy. Even if the odds are low for the right conditions, the right conditions would occur a great many times. Earth is irrelevant. You wonder and think it's marvelous only because you are able to do so. Look at it from Mercury's point of view: How'd I get to be so unlucky as to be melty and lifeless; when Earth, only two planets away, has so much water and life? Hey, SOMEone had to be.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 88
Evolution.
Posted: 7/27/2009 8:49:08 PM

The first glaring problem with Miller's pre-biotic earth chemistry is that his "origin of life" experiments all made use of oxygen-free environments: Organic compounds can NOT originate naturally in the presence of oxygen. duh.

So why is that a problem?
 BumFluff122
Joined: 4/4/2009
Msg: 89
Evolution.
Posted: 7/27/2009 9:58:12 PM

They didn't make RNA in the lab from non-organic material. They didn't even make RNA from non-complex organic material. They DID recreate self-replicating RNA with pre-existing enzymes that contained many nucleotides. This is very important and proof that they are seemingly on the right track, but still not quite to the point of making a roadmap from the 'primordial ooze' to 'life'.

Are you talking about getting ribonucleotides to form RNA in the lab but not being able to form ribonucleotides out of much of anything?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

they synthesized rybonucleotides a couple months ago.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 90
Evolution.
Posted: 7/27/2009 10:06:44 PM

Without Oxygen there is no Ozone. Without Ozone there is nothing shielding the Earth from the Sun's Ultraviolet radiation. And in the formation of life, UV radiation is very baaad.

I'm not a biochemist or exobiologist and I'm relatively unfamiliar with the chemical composition of planet earth at the time organic compunds were allegedly forming. That said, however, it is my understanding that at that point in time, most of earth's oxygen was locked in compounds like water, carbon mono & dioxides, etc. There would have been little or no atmospheric oxygen (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm unsure of the atmospheric composition of the time, but assume it was mostly the result of volcanic gases like water vapor (that condensed to water), carbon dioxide, sulfuric acid, and a sprinkling of a few other compounds like hydrochloric acid. I'm told there was a lot of nitrogen, but virtually no free atmospheric oxygen at the time, so I don't see its presence being a problem with the creation of organic compounds.

Since life originated in the ocean, why would UV radiation have destroyed it? Wasn't the water itself a sufficient shield before the processes of life created the ozone layer?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/27/2009 10:31:46 PM
frogo

I am trying to wrap myself around how you guys think, or I'll never figure out what you are even saying.

I'll never believe it, but trying to join in the probability game which to me is at the moment a total improbability reality.

the sun, earth, moon, etc, all have a critical job, at that size, for it to work.

there is a critical force that has to be just right for chemicals to form in the stars, do I have to go on, or does nothing amase you as far as one piece of the puzzle missing, and no life?

if thats the case, I'm just talking to myself.

thermodynamics? law of decay? things get worse over time, not better.
 Flaman49
Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 92
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 8:14:47 AM

posted by: justdukky
I'm not a biochemist or exobiologist and I'm relatively unfamiliar with the chemical composition of planet earth at the time organic compunds were allegedly forming. That said, however, it is my understanding that at that point in time, most of earth's oxygen was locked in compounds like water, carbon mono & dioxides, etc. There would have been little or no atmospheric oxygen (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm unsure of the atmospheric composition of the time, but assume it was mostly the result of volcanic gases like water vapor (that condensed to water), carbon dioxide, sulfuric acid, and a sprinkling of a few other compounds like hydrochloric acid. I'm told there was a lot of nitrogen, but virtually no free atmospheric oxygen at the time, so I don't see its presence being a problem with the creation of organic compounds.

Since life originated in the ocean, why would UV radiation have destroyed it? Wasn't the water itself a sufficient shield before the processes of life created the ozone layer?


yeah yeah....what he said! Plus I'll add this...


"Forgotten Experiment May Explain Origins of Life"
Originally considered a dud, an old volcano-in-a-bottle experiment designed to mimic conditions that may have brewed the components of life might have been right on target.

After reanalyzing the results of unpublished research conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953, chemists realized that his experiment had actually produced a wealth of amino acids — the protein foundation of life.

Miller is famed for the results of experiments on amino acid formation in a jar filled with methane, hydrogen and ammonia — his version of the primordial soup. However, his estimates of atmospheric composition were eventually considered inaccurate. The experiment became regarded as a general rather than useful example of how the first organic molecules may have assembled.

But the latest results, derived from samples found in an old box by one of Miller’s former graduate students, come from a device that mimicked volcanic conditions now believed to have existed three billion years ago. The findings suggest that amino acids could have formed when lightning struck pools of gas on the flanks of volcanoes, and are a fitting coda for the late father of prebiotic chemistry.

"What’s amazing is that he did it," said study co-author Jeffrey Bada, a Scripps Institute of Oceanography biochemist and Miller’s former student. "All I did is have access to his extracts."


Bada stumbled across the original experiment by accident when a colleague of Miller’s mentioned having seen a box of experimental samples in Miller’s office. Bada, who inherited Miller’s scientific possessions after his death in 2007, found the box —
literally labeled "1953-1954 experiments" — in his own office.

Inside it were samples taken by Miller from a device that spewed a concentrated stream of primordial gases over an electrical spark. It was a high-powered variation on the steady-steam apparatus that earned him fame — but unlike that device, it appeared to have produced few amino acids, and was unmentioned in his landmark 1953 Science study, "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions."

But Miller didn’t have access to high-performance liquid chromatography, which lets chemists break down and classify samples with once-unthinkable levels of precision. And when Bada’s team reanalyzed the disregarded samples, they found no fewer than 22 amino acids, several of which were never seen by Miller in a lifetime of primordial modeling.

Perhaps amino acids first formed when the gases in Miller’s device accumulated around active volcanoes, said Bada. "Instead of having global synthesis of organic molecules, you had a lot of little localized factories in the form of these volcanic islands," he said.

"The amino acid precursors formed in a plume and concentrated along tidal shores. They settled in the water, underwent further reactions there, and as they washed along the shore, became concentrated and underwent further polymerization events," explained Indiana University biochemist Adam Johnson, a co-author of the study. "And lightning" — the final catalyst in the equation — "tends to be extremely common with volcanic eruptions."

Luke Leman, a Scripps Institute biochemist who was not involved in the study, published today in Science, agreed.

"These findings add to a growing body of literature suggesting that areas near volcanoes could have been hotspots of organic chemistry on early Earth," he said.

Leman continued, "These findings will likely inspire a next generation of prebiotic chemists, much as Miller’s original experimental results have inspired the field for more than fifty years."


Read it carefully
 Flaman49
Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 93
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 8:36:18 AM

posted by: Sign11
The first glaring problem with Miller's pre-biotic earth chemistry is that his "origin of life" experiments all made use of oxygen-free environments: Organic compounds can NOT originate naturally in the presence of oxygen. duh.


who said there was oxygen in the atmosphere? Miller surmised that the early earth conditons was like Jupiter..with an atmo consisting of methane, hydrogen and amonia. The only oxygen anywhere was in the oceans. Read my previous post where I pasted an article where his original research was re examined after his death.

Btw, I re read my original post. I erroneously put oxygen in the sentence where I mentioned the atmospheric conditions of early earth. That was a typo ...duh
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 94
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 8:51:14 AM

No water and no oxygen? Does this sound like anything resembling the natural conditions existing in the primordial soup prior to life on earth?

If water and oxygen are hostile to life; given the fact that we are 70% water and breathe in order to extract oxygen from the atmosphere, shouldn't we not even exist? Maybe their is a flaw in that reasoning?
 BumFluff122
Joined: 4/4/2009
Msg: 95
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 9:36:44 AM

When a magazine like "Wired" announces "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory", the Materialists are quick to parrot the headline without bothering to read the peer-reviewed implications of the experiments such as this one by Dr. Shapiro:


Did you happen to look at the citations at the bottom of the article I posted? The above article is stating something along the lines of "Well we don't know what the chemical ingredients of early Earth were so it's pointless to try and make life out of anything"

A point is made near the end of the url you gave. If a combination of inorganic matter is found to be the first spark of life and that combination of inorganic matter was non-existent on Earth it would lend a greater probability to the ideas concerning panspermia.

It seems like you're expecting a be-all-end-all type of theory that states "This is how life began, these are the chemicals that the early environments on Earth consisted of, etc..." In order to get to that point we have to edge our way towards it.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 96
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:21:47 AM
that do not resemble the natural chemistry on the earth, past or present.

With regard to the past, do you have evidence to show the chemistry of the time differs in any significant way from what they have suggested? If so, why do you think they suggested the wrong chemistry? Did they have ANY evidence to support their hypotheses? Do you have any to support yours?
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 97
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 12:25:17 PM
Ohh I know this I know this! Only pure oxygen has a truly negative effect on life. Water however, offers the most chemical reactions in a neutral state than any other liquid and it has a Ph level of 7 which makes it ideal for forming life through abiogenesis... I learned that in bio 101...
 Flaman49
Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 98
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 12:28:56 PM

If oxygen destroys the RNA compounds produced in the Miller experiments, how do you account for the theory that life evolved from the oceans, which contain oxygen?



How the hell should I know...do I have a Phd after my name? I drive a semi ...I just refuse to believe in any sadistic bloodthirsty sado masochistic god who refuses to show proof of his existance, so the answer has to be found scientifically. So what are you saying? Life didnt evolve here, or we're just on the wrong path?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 99
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 12:33:14 PM

So what are you saying?

As near as I can tell, he's trying to tell us we don't exist because the chemistry is all wrong. I suspect a logical flaw somewhere...
 Flaman49
Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 100
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 12:34:04 PM

posted by: Verzen
Ohh I know this I know this! Only pure oxygen has a truly negative effect on life. Water however, offers the most chemical reactions in a neutral state than any other liquid and it has a Ph level of 7 which makes it ideal for forming life through abiogenesis... I learned that in bio 101...



Way to go Verzen!! Lets hear it for higher education

It's like being on "Who wants to be a millionaire" lol
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.