How close are you in believing ?

a reply to: flyingfish

There exist a serious rift in physics between classic physics and Quantum mechanics.

Not really. Just physicists working hard to understand how to deal with conditions that 'classic physics' cannot deal properly with - like what happens in a black hole or in the big bang. There was no 'rift' between Newtonian Physics and Einstein's Relativity, they just work best in the domain where they work best and there is quite a bit of overlap. Likewise between Quantum and Relativity.

This is the new frontier in physics, combining the two theory's into the ultimate theory of everything!

Yeah, well TOE is perhaps a rather ambitious name, as is the term GUT (Grand Unified Theory) for the three partial unification theories we have now. Adding gravity into the GUTs is the current 'holy grail' for physicists at the moment. That's a while off yet, and needs to be done before we can even thing about a TOE. And no matter how you cut it, any TOE is going to be constrained by quantum uncertainty - it is impossible to get around.

Stephen Hawkings has a good discussion of this in his "Brief History of Time".

a reply to: surfer_soul

where in the laws of physics do we get something from nothing in the first place?

From the Heisenberg Quantum Uncertainty Principle.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

The diversity COMES FROM the altered code. The mechanism has been elucidated and studied for a number of years now.
The PRE-EXISTING code that you refer to would be the original, unaltered code, unique to that organism.... The new species retains most of the pre-existing code BUT NOW HAS BEEN ALTERED AND CHANGED which is distinct for that new species.

You aren't understanding the problem. Whatever gene gets mutated, no longer does the function of the gene that got mutated. Do you know how DNA transcription and translation works? If the code is mutated it doesn't continue to make the old gene and the new gene, it would only make the new mutated code. So the question remains, how does the organism function without the old gene?

Phantom I don't think you know what you're talking about, and judging by the 5 stars you got for that comment you are deceiving other readers as well..

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Try this article - it's complete. I can get the other articles if you want them but the abstracts are quite descriptive.

The RNA World and the Origins of Life

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Presumably, the first membrane-bounded cells were formed by the spontaneous assembly of a set of amphipathic molecules, enclosing a self-replicating mixture of RNA (or pre-RNA) and other molecules. It is not clear at what point in the evolution of biological catalysts this first occurred. In any case, once RNA molecules were sealed within a closed membrane, they could begin to evolve in earnest as carriers of genetic instructions: they could be selected not merely on the basis of their own structure, but also according to their effect on the other molecules in the same compartment. The nucleotide sequences of the RNA molecules could now be expressed in the character of a unitary living cell.

______________________________________________________________________

Again, I don't know where you're getting your information on "evolutionary theory". Self assembly simply implies that the origin of life could have had a self assembly component - from RNA to cell membranes to nucleic acids and peptides. After life was present, self assembly could still be part of the evolutionary trail. The origin of life and evolution are two different subjects. Self assembly could play a role in both.

Regarding the word "teleological", I gave you my position on the subject - I'm not particularly interested in philosophical opinions - your description of function and purpose overlap - and I don't agree with that. Structure/function/evolution is a system. Inserting human interpretations into the basic science causes confusion and misinterpretation of what the science actually says. The function of evolutionary change is reproduction and survival - that's all there is to it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

The diversity COMES FROM the altered code. The mechanism has been elucidated and studied for a number of years now.
The PRE-EXISTING code that you refer to would be the original, unaltered code, unique to that organism.... The new species retains most of the pre-existing code BUT NOW HAS BEEN ALTERED AND CHANGED which is distinct for that new species.

You aren't understanding the problem. Whatever gene gets mutated, no longer does the function of the gene that got mutated. Do you know how DNA transcription and translation works? If the code is mutated it doesn't continue to make the old gene and the new gene, it would only make the new mutated code. So the question remains, how does the organism function without the old gene?

Phantom I don't think you know what you're talking about, and judging by the 5 stars you got for that comment you are deceiving other readers as well..

Read the paper in this post and figure it out. You simply don't understand how this works - and that's because you never read the papers that are posted. If you took the time to investigate the REAL science, you might get a better grip on the fundamentals.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423

Read the paper in this post and figure it out. You simply don't understand how this works - and that's because you never read the papers that are posted. If you took the time to investigate the REAL science, you might get a better grip on the fundamentals.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1) the paper that you sent me to go-fish in is describing a potential theory. Theory is not empirical evidence. Theory attempts to explain phenomenon with extrapolated assumptions.

2) It does not address how the mutated code would continue to produce the necessary pre-mutation coding sequence

Although I did read something in the paper that I found funny:

"Such a composite theory is extremely flexible and consequently can “explain” just about anything by optimizing the relative contributions of different processes to fit the structure of the standard code."

In other words, the theory is so vague that it is difficult be proven wrong because new explanations can continually be made. The scientist, who seems to be fairly objective, admits the fault in such thinking:

"Of course, the falsifiability or, more generally, testability of such an overadjusted scenario become issues of concern."

This is the problem with evolutionary theory. It's difficult to falsify because new explanations are continually contrived to avoid scrutiny from new empirical evidence that demonstrates the impossibility of evolution - in other words, the theory of evolution is altered in similar fashion to a person covering up a lie with more and more lies. Soon enough the truth will be revealed, I try not to sweat it too much.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Read the paper in this post and figure it out. You simply don't understand how this works - and that's because you never read the papers that are posted. If you took the time to investigate the REAL science, you might get a better grip on the fundamentals.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1) the paper that you sent me to go-fish in is describing a potential theory. Theory is not science, it attempts to explain phenomenon with extrapolated assumptions.

2) It does not address how the mutated code would continue to produce the necessary pre-mutation coding sequence

Although I did read something in the paper that I found funny:

"Such a composite theory is extremely flexible and consequently can “explain” just about anything by optimizing the relative contributions of different processes to fit the structure of the standard code."

In other words, the theory is so vague that it is difficult be proven wrong because new explanations can continually be made. The scientist, who seems to be fairly objective, admits the fault in such thinking:

"Of course, the falsifiability or, more generally, testability of such an overadjusted scenario become issues of concern."

This is the problem with evolutionary theory. It's difficult to falsify because new explanations are continually contrived to avoid scrutiny from new empirical evidence that demonstrates the impossibility of evolution - in other words, the theory of evolution is altered in similar fashion to a person covering up a lie with more and more lies. Soon enough the truth will be revealed, I try not to sweat it too much.

Because creationist hypotheses don't do that at all...

a reply to: cooperton

Follow the references. The empirical evidence is there. You just don't have a clue how to do research.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Follow the references. The empirical evidence is there. You just don't have a clue how to do research.

You do this consistently. Tell others to go fish.

Quote the part of the paper that you think is a reasonable explanation for maintaining the function of the old code, while still expressing the new mutated code.

a reply to: cooperton

No. Do your own homework for a change. Follow the references. Read the "Materials and Methods" sections of the papers cited. Figure it out. I'm not going to spoonfeed you.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

The diversity COMES FROM the altered code. The mechanism has been elucidated and studied for a number of years now.
The PRE-EXISTING code that you refer to would be the original, unaltered code, unique to that organism.... The new species retains most of the pre-existing code BUT NOW HAS BEEN ALTERED AND CHANGED which is distinct for that new species.

You aren't understanding the problem. Whatever gene gets mutated, no longer does the function of the gene that got mutated. Do you know how DNA transcription and translation works? If the code is mutated it doesn't continue to make the old gene and the new gene, it would only make the new mutated code. So the question remains, how does the organism function without the old gene?

Phantom I don't think you know what you're talking about, and judging by the 5 stars you got for that comment you are deceiving other readers as well..

You make it sound as if there is only one copy of any given gene at any one time which is not even close to reality. Mutations occur countless times per day in every organism, including yourself. The overwhelming majority of those are completely benign, but still, they occur. It only takes a replication error in one instance of replication to create a new mutation which als leaves the original gene and function fully intact. Nobody is being misled by Phantom423's posts aside from those who refuse to read all of the data. I don't think it's quite fair to make those claims about someone else's posts when you're going on and on as if you're stating facts when the truth of it is that you don't actually seem to grasp some very basic and fundamental concepts at the core of this discussion. This is evidenced by the insistence that once a mutation occurs, the original function is lost because you don't understand how the original gene can coexist alongside the new mutation simultaneously. It comes off as if you refuse to look at any data that contradicts a YEC worldview.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

No. Do your own homework for a change. Follow the references. Read the "Materials and Methods" sections of the papers cited. Figure it out. I'm not going to spoonfeed you.

Do you even read the papers you post? There is no "Materials and Methods" section in the The Paper you Posted

originally posted by: peter vlar

You make it sound as if there is only one copy of any given gene at any one time which is not even close to reality.

haha what? So we have two or more of the same genes?

That is a completely unfounded statement. Do you know how gene expression works?

Mutations occur countless times per day in every organism, including yourself.

Which the body, if behaving normally, is able to correct. Regardless, somatic cell (non-sex cell) mutations do not get passed on to offspring so it would be erroneous to the theory of evolution.

It only takes a replication error in one instance of replication to create a new mutation which also leaves the original gene and function fully intact.

No it wouldn't, because the old template gene is no longer the same, and has been mutated into a new coding sequence. You can't have both.

a reply to: cooperton

I'll tell you for the last time - read the reference articles cited in the paper. If you can't figure it out, I can't, or I won't, help you. If you read the papers and have an intelligent question to ask, I'll respond. Otherwise, not.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

I'll tell you for the last time - read the reference articles cited in the paper. If you can't figure it out, I can't, or I won't, help you. If you read the papers and have an intelligent question to ask, I'll respond. Otherwise, not.

So now my homework is not just reading the paper which you yourself didn't read, but also the reference papers?

How about you just tell me in scientific terms how the old function of the mutated gene is capable of persisting with the new mutated gene?

a reply to: cooperton

I read the paper, not all the references.

Figure out the answer to your question yourself. Look at the diagram in the original paper.

Fractals and Quantum Mechanics reveal not just the World, but the Universe is most likely very manipulable and simple, not complex.

God needs a minute to finish. Everything around us is in our potential already. Even creating life.

originally posted by: cooperton
You aren't understanding the problem. Whatever gene gets mutated, no longer does the function of the gene that got mutated. Do you know how DNA transcription and translation works? If the code is mutated it doesn't continue to make the old gene and the new gene, it would only make the new mutated code. So the question remains, how does the organism function without the old gene?.

The vast majority of genetic mutations are neutral, so you are wrong.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: greencmp

Francis Crick isn't just "some smart guy", I thought I made it clear that he was the discoverer of DNA. That sort of association with a scientific development tends to lend particular credibility to a comment.

Except Crick did NOT think that DNA could not evolve, and did NOT believe that life on Earth was due to Panspermia. He SPECULATED that perhaps abiogenesis was rare in the universe, but that once it had occurred anywhere, it could perhaps be spread via panspermia. As he came to understand the DNA process better, he realized that abiogenesis wasn't likely to be so unusual after all. A quick review of Crick's Wikipedia biography would have told you that:

During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.[91] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called "directed panspermia".[92] In a retrospective article,[93] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life.

In 1976 Crick addressed the origin of protein synthesis in a paper with Sydney Brenner, Aaron Klug, and George Pieczenik.[94] In this paper, they speculate that code constraints on nucleotide sequences allow protein synthesis without the need for a ribosome. It, however, requires a five base binding between the mRNA and tRNA with a flip of the anti-codon creating a triplet coding, even though it is a five-base physical interaction. Thomas H. Jukes pointed out that the code constraints on the mRNA sequence required for this translation mechanism is still preserved.[95

Speculations made early and without complete knowledge, especially one's that were later recanted, are not a good choice with which to form the basis of an argument.

The prerequisite for a panspermia process is an initial abiogenesis event somewhere and evolution to a space faring race. For that to occur and for that race to then reach Earth and seed 'life' on Earth and that life to then evolve to life as we know it now requires a time frame approaching that of the age of the Universe.

The panspermia idea does not remove the requirement for abiogenesis event - it just moves it off planet and further away in time. Occam's Razor requires us to look for the simpler answer and an earthly abiogenesis is much simpler than an off planet one.

It was a misquote and apparently I'm not the first to fall for it.

However, the purpose of my mentioning it was to indicate that Crick believes that panspermia might be the origin of DNA. This is relevant because he was the co-discoverer of DNA.

This is significant because the OP was asking a question about creation and the origin of life.

originally posted by: Barcs

The vast majority of genetic mutations are neutral, so you are wrong.

In somatic (non-sex) cells of living organisms, yes this is usually harmless.

A mutation in a somatic cell will not have an immense effect on the body because it is usually corrected or destroyed. Unless of course this mutation leads to a cancerous cell, then there is a problem.

But mutations leading to evolution, according to the theory, would have to be through sex cells or the zygote of the offspring - this in turn would cause ALL the cells of that growing organism to contain that particular mutation. Let's say for example the lac operon was mutated - it could potentially code for a completely different protein chain and thus be rendered useless. Even if this new protein, which has a NEW function, is useful, this inherently means that the old protein chain coded for by this gene will no longer be created.