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
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 101
Evolution.Page 5 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)
Cells also contain water within them to offer the most chemical reaction possible and cells are living. Water also has oxygen in it, but yet it doesn't seem to have a negative effect on life at all *since cells need it*.. In fact, it has a positive effect because it can cause the process of chemical reactions, which we are all a product of, to form more quickly. That is why water is a necessity for life to form. Without water, there is no life.

Edit: Where is my million dollars?
 quietjohn2
Joined: 12/6/2004
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 2:32:28 PM
There's always been about the same amount of oxygen on the planet. Mostly combined with other atoms, predominantly silicon, hydrogen and carbon. That would mean rocks, water and carbon dioxide. All with completely different chemical properties from molecular oxygen. Oxygen is too unstable to exist as molecular oxygen without something generating it. Early earth atmospheres were considered to be 'reducing atmospheres'. That is, atmostpheres with a high reducing capacity rather than the current oxidizing capacity. CO2, H2S, NH3 CH4 etc., in common with the atmospheres detected on other planets that are assumed to be lifeless. The current, unnatural oxygen atmosphere is a by-product of plant and plankton photosynthesis - turning C02 and the energy of the sun into carbohydrates and molecular oxygen. The oxygen in early seas would have been the atoms of oxygen in the water molecules. Molecular oxygen wouldn't have been there until the photosynthetic plankton arrived on the scene.
As for radiation destroying life, water absorbs all types of solar radiation, thereby limiting the depth to which any radiation will penetrate. As many here demonstrate, we humans make many assumptions based on their own prejudices and experiences. One is that life developed on the surface of the planet. Nowadays the discovery of life around benthic vents suggests that life could also evolve in the deepest regions of our oceans - well beyound the limits of penetration by solar radiation. Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that life first evolved in the oceans. Articles such as http://www.pnas.org/content/99/11/7658.full.pdf describe the environments surrounding benthic vents as "anoxic, reduced, hydrocarbon-rich sedimentary habitats".
 quietjohn2
Joined: 12/6/2004
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 2:48:00 PM

Recent biological and interplanetary studies seem to favor an early oxidized atmosphere rich in CO2 and possibly containing free molecular oxygen.
Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription to GeoWorld, so couldn't access the full article. However, the term oxydized usually refers to something which has reacted with oxygen and therefore taken molecular oxygen to convert to some other material. You seem to ignore that red beds, sea and groundwater sulphate, oxidized terrestrial and sea-floor weathering crusts, and the distribution of ferric iron in sedimentary rocks are geological observations and inferences compatible with the biological and planetary predictions are all indicative of oxygen sequestered in other molecules and your conclusions seems the opposite of the author's statement that their observations are geological observations and inferences compatible with the biological and planetary predictions. Once again, without access to the complete article, it is impossible to determine exactly what the atmospheric levels of oxygen were at the time. However, as I mention in a previous post, conditions close to the conditions used experimentally to create organic molecules still exist on Eath aound the benthic vents of the deep oceans.
 Flaman49
Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 104
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 3:04:05 PM

Cells also contain water within them to offer the most chemical reaction possible and cells are living. Water also has oxygen in it, but yet it doesn't seem to have a negative effect on life at all *since cells need it*.. In fact, it has a positive effect because it can cause the process of chemical reactions, which we are all a product of, to form more quickly. That is why water is a necessity for life to form. Without water, there is no life.

Edit: Where is my million dollars?



The checks in the mail
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 105
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 3:56:18 PM

which refutes Miller's reductionist theory.

...until most of the free atmospeheric oxygen was locked in compounds.
Tag...You're "it."
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 106
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 4:15:41 PM
The first part is a lie, the second part is true...
The only way life CAN first form is through water. It's impossible without being in water first for life to form.

Disproving Sign11's claims since 2009...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 107
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 4:18:42 PM

If there's enough free oxygen in the atmosphere to rust the rocks...

...it will eventually get used up doing so. what them prevents production of RNA?
*tag..(got you before you got out.)
 greg14229
Joined: 7/18/2009
Msg: 108
Evolution.
Posted: 7/28/2009 4:22:13 PM
sign, again you are decades behind the times. Its true that a watery environment inhibits polymerization. It has been generally accepted by evolutionists for decades that polymers formed when rain or wind splashed water onto nearby rocks...this has been reproduced many times in the laboratory. And almost every other stage of early evolution benefits from water.

Man, evolution is a fact. Its not worth debating anymore. Why are you against science? The world is how it is.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 109
Evolution.
Posted: 7/30/2009 11:54:29 PM
And how many times do I have to tell you that without water, there can be no life! Do you know what is inside every cell? Every amoeba? WATER... Do you know what is Inside our cells that contain DNA within them? WATER!!!! Water is in EVERY cell which contains DNA and yet the DNA isnt breaking down!!!! Robert Shapiro and Iris Fry are both morons!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 110
Evolution.
Posted: 7/31/2009 11:02:18 AM
So sign...and I know this is a pointless question because you've ducked it in the past...what's your explanation? Or are you simply content to sit here and try to look smart by "questioning" the basic tenets of evolutionary theory?

Here's the thing, and I know you don't like it but it's truth. If you want to call to question one theory for the origin of life, then it's a lot better to have an alternative to debate. Otherwise, you're just looking foolish. Stop tilting at windmills and get into a real debate.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 111
Evolution.
Posted: 7/31/2009 5:58:39 PM
Btw sign - life did not start out as DNA.. It started out as RNA and we can recreate it in a lab.
 quietjohn2
Joined: 12/6/2004
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/31/2009 8:39:30 PM

To put it bluntly, Shapiro is talking bull sh!t
Not so sure about that, or if the quotes have been lifted out of context from creationist sites such as http://www.creationism.org/heinze/FirstLife05LifeFmSpace.htm which seems to have the Iris Fry Quote verbatim.
Shapiro is an eminent origins of life researcher, clearly not within the creationist sphere. In his own words, he is
attempting to further our understanding of the mechanism involved in the origin of life. I utilize data produced by others to critize currently popular theories, such as “RNA-first,” and to develop alternatives, particularly ones that would make life’s origin a common, rather than a rare event.

Fry is a philosopher and science historian. Like Shapiro, she seems to subscibe to the view that the formation of life was common and inevitable at one time in the earth's history. Something she calls the 'continuity thesis' (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x78264k7753669g0/fulltext.pdf).
Sure, scientists are struggling to understand the origins of life. It's very difficult to transport yourself, even within your imagination into a world which is so far outside of our everyday experiences as the early universe and earth was. And that makes it very difficult to speculate on what may have been happening. But scientists prefer to tough it out and struggle with reality rather than bury their heads in a mythical text and wave eerything off as a miracle.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 8/1/2009 12:00:46 PM
I have yet to see sign11 propose ANYTHING. Any moron with a sledgehammer can tear down a house... The sad part is, his efforts with the hammer are so pathetic.

Sign? What's YOUR alternative proposal? Do you have one, or are you just a talentless critic, trashing everything without offering any sort of better explanation?

Also:

An argument against the proposed reductionist atmosphere from:
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/141

Do you understand the difference between "reducing" and "reductionist?" srsly. I'm going to just toss out the idea that you have zero chemistry background, even though you've been using chemical arguments against abiogenesis... in an EVOLUTION thread. Where, again, you don't appear to understand the difference between the two.
:roll:
 Clasical_Cynic
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 114
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/1/2009 12:19:34 PM
The Biblical account of Creationism has nothing to do with my view of the matter.
In science there is a theory called entropy which states that systems deteriorate from organized to disorganized losing energy in the process. In order for something to become more complicated and organized (literally and metaphorically) concience effort must be induced. Intelligent design if you will.


I do not suggest that evolution as a random change in an organism, which is more conducive to survive in a particular enviornment, cannot be incorrect.

Maybe both theories are correct.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/1/2009 1:08:04 PM
The Biblical account of Creationism has nothing to do with my view of the matter.
In science there is a theory called entropy which states that systems deteriorate from organized to disorganized losing energy in the process. In order for something to become more complicated and organized (literally and metaphorically) concience effort must be induced. Intelligent design if you will.

Not simply theory, but laws of thermodynamics, which are commonly misunderstood and misrepresented in this context. The interpretation is simplistic, in that it doesn't account for energy flow or energy input. Yes, energy is lost, but it can't simply dissociate and go its' own way. It is lost in step-wise fashion via chemical and nuclear reactions. Each reaction involves a specific amount of energy. "Downhill" reactions take place all on their own, energy being released in the process. Some of that energy goes directly into additional reactions, forcing them UPhill. If we were solely dependant on chemical energy, we might have a problem, at least in terms of how long the "fuel" would last. However, we're not. We have the chemical and nuclear energy sources of the sun and the planetary core, and these will last billions more years. Even the motion of our solar system adds energy to the system, by generating friction inside the planet, friction which generates heat.

No conscious effort is required. Energy is required, and it is not only abundant, but the means by which it it enters the system are well documented.
 greg14229
Joined: 7/18/2009
Msg: 116
Evolution.
Posted: 8/1/2009 1:43:32 PM
i never thought i'd be bored by debating an evolution topic.....but you guys are definately boring me. You're just going around in circles.

And this topic is sooo old anyway. Why do you guys bother? Lets start some fresh threads with actual debatable topics. Still debating evolution is like arguing whether or not the earth is flat.

Evolution happened. Get over it. Now lets go to some topics that are actually intellectually stimulating. There are some astrophysics discussions going on that are pretty interesting.......we could use a few new topics :)
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 117
view profile
History
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/1/2009 2:10:16 PM

Where are these "well documented" experiments that you made reference to?

I made no such reference, and your citation isn't relevant to what I was describing. It refers to catalysis, which was not mentioned, refered to, or even required anywhere in my post.
 greg14229
Joined: 7/18/2009
Msg: 118
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/1/2009 2:19:17 PM
guys, why are you arguing sign?? He alters his own reality to fit what he believes. A year from now, he will still be saying the same unenlightened things. Come to the theoretical physics forums...i gave up on sign a long time ago....it would be different if his arguments were mildly compelling or made sense......but fighting him is too easy...
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/1/2009 3:21:20 PM

Uhm, yeah, ok. When you said, "well documented" you must have meant something more like, "well documented unless someone asks for proof of such documentation".

Perhaps you wish to dispute the fact that plants use chlorophyl and other compounds to convert solar energy to chemical energy? Would you like to also dispute that various organisms living around volcanic vents obtain chemical energy from sulfur compounds, and convert it to chemical energy stored in carbon compounds? I wouldn't think I'd need to identify experiments to demonstrate basic facts, any more than I'd need to drop a rock on your foot to prove the existence of gravity.


So what sort of "chemical reaction" were you referring to that has been "well documented" that does not involve catalysis?

Most. Catalysts generally enhance reaction rates, while facilitating others. They are not generally required.


My "citation" as you call it

As I all it? It WAS a citation, by definition!


also made reference to the the other energy sources you listed,

Irrelevant. You refered to what you posted, nothing else. I addressed your point, and have no intention of reading and critiquing an entire online book or chapter in order to address points you didn't make.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/1/2009 4:13:57 PM

I'm disputing the fact that ANY random thermonuclear energy system you describe has EVER been successfully used in demonstrating the spontaneous creation of even ONE single RNA molecule, let alone a more complex DNA strand.

You responded to me, and that was not my claim. Next windmill please.


According to you these experiments are "well documented".

Also not my claim. You'd love it in Holland...or the Crowsnest Pass, or the Columbia Gorge.


*hint* dropping a rock on your foot isn't going to count as proof

Perfectly valid evidence that gravity exists. Note the very relevant analogy.

Have you considered Ritalin? Might help you focus.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 121
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/1/2009 4:56:16 PM

to prove the existence of gravity.

You mean intelligent falling...
 quietjohn2
Joined: 12/6/2004
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/1/2009 5:42:17 PM
Sign, you're a classic example for those who claim the education system is failing us! Have you even looked up the details of the Miller-Urey experiment. Here's a description you may manage to grasp - it has pictures! - and shows water as a constituent part of the experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment. If you'd bothered to do a bit of background research - like Googling Miller experiment before making comments, you may have actually learned something and saved other folks a bunch of typing. Then you could Google early reducing atmosphere and checkout the close to half a million web pages discussing it. Or try primordial reducing atmosphere and reduce it to 11,000.
As for your comments on science, at least those folks try to base their ideas on observation and logic. What's your basis? Conspiracy theories designed to delude the proletariat for reasons which make about as much sense as the ill founded criticism you level at people doing their best to figure things out? Logical, inquiring minds have done wonders over the ages to advance knowledge and, more importantly, capitalize on the understanding that has allowed human progress to its current levels. Go ahead, criticize that progress. I'm sure you have equally stimulating arguments about your preference for a cold, miserable, unpredictable life, predicated on the belief that you have no control over it, a life expectancy of less than 30 years and an infant mortality rate of maybe 75%. Ahhh for those good old days!!!!
 quietjohn2
Joined: 12/6/2004
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/2/2009 12:06:01 AM
As I suspected, The Shapiro quotes in this thread are somewhat misrepresented. Perhaps why precise citations of the (mis)quotes were not provided. The tone of this thread demonstates exactly why any form of creationism should be vigorously exluded from any science curriculum. Science is about trying to sort out fact and ideas to get at the truth. Here we see misrepresentations, misinformation and rhetoric used to derail such searches for truth. Completely incompatible with science, yet favorite games of the creationist lobby.
Yes, shapiro is sceptical about the spontaneous appearance of nucleotides as the first step in abiogenesis and he has some good arguments to back his notions. Just because he doesn't agree with other scientists on the issue doesn't mean he rejects abiogenesis. He, along with many other scientists belives that life evolved from much simpler molecules in processes which were probably inevitable. His true view is that life probably wasn't the result of some lucky accident, but an inevitable consequence of chemistry. He makes his point relatively well in a Scientific American article available on the web at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life.

Someof the (mis)quotes are there in proper context where he takes the first 4-5 pages to question theories on spontaneous nucleotide generation. Following that, he discusses other plausible chemistries which may have begun the evolution of life. That begins at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life&page=5
Here are somefurther quotes from that section...
Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution.

Many potential paths to life may exist, with the choice dictated by the local environment.

However, because we know that evolution does not anticipate future events, we can presume that nucleotides first appeared in metabolism to serve some other purpose, perhaps as catalysts or as containers for the storage of chemical energy.

The small-molecule alternative, however, is in harmony with the views of biologist Stuart Kauffman: "If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with unknown companions."

Sorta makes a moot point of arguments about nucleic acids. Then again, if you Google solubility of the various nucleotides you will find that they dissolve in water rather than spontaneously decompose in it. You mau also have found that water and nucleic acids happily coeist, as in http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/nucleic.html ...

B-DNA needs about 30%, by weight, water to maintain its native conformation in the crystalline state. Partial dehydration converts it to A-DNA (with a narrower and deeper major groove and very wide but shallow minor groove).
Amazingly, some textbooks even talk about the prperies of DNA in solution. For eample, page 46 of Molecular biology By Philip C. Turner talks about DNA denaturing by heat..
The thermal denaturation of DNA may be reversed by cooling the solution
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/2/2009 12:38:43 AM
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig." --Robert Heinlein

I would argue that trying to argue science or chemistry with an ID/creationist proponent who doesn't understand the difference between "reductionist" and "reducing atmosphere" is a similar boondoggle.
 Clasical_Cynic
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 125
Evolution. and Creationism
Posted: 8/2/2009 6:16:53 AM
You are correct. It is the "Law" of entropy.
My point is that while it is possible that a more organized organism can be created by a random exothermic (providing the energy for the endothermic) reaction I believe a conscience effort must be applied to create the more organized organism. Statistically speaking this is more probable.

A lesser probability is still a possibility. This is why I suggested that both creationism and evolution can be correct. They do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.