It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Observationalist

1) It goes against the hypothesis I want so we should throw it out. That seems like lazy option.
2) The science is already in. So this seems like a bad option as well
3) Adding more years to the table doesn't solve the problem this completely changes the sequence in which things are said to have evolved. Vertebrates are said to have come from invertebrates. If they both evolved from two separate lines of eukaryotic cells this solution does nothing.


Alright try this
5. Imaginary transitional invertabrets.
6. Quantum evolutionary Vacuum. ? Not sure what that could be but sounded cool maybe that will come up as a result.

Seriously though, Scientism relies so deeply on evolution being an absolute that this could get silly.


Scientists are getting serous about parrallel time lines. Thread

Well here you go you don't have to worry about any of this anymore, looks like 6. The quantum evolutionary vacuum will solve this dilemma.

The parallel time lines allows for multiple evolutionary events and mutations that were not observed so therefore scientists can now not only add more time to the evolution equation but also add a parallel time line where all their magical transitional forms are living in. Your prophets... oh I mean "scientists" are starting to get desperate.


edit on 30-11-2016 by Observationalist because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

All one needs to do is go to google scholar, Sci-Finder or Reaxys and type "DNA self assembly"


With Reaxys I got over 35K results.

Viz
J Mol Recognit. 2011 Mar-Apr;24(2):137-8.

A Case Study of the Likes and Dislikes of DNA and RNA in Self-Assembly
Zuo, Hua; Wu, Siyu; Li, Mo; Li, Yulin; Jiang, Wen; Mao, Chengde 2015
2015 Angewandte Chemie - International Edition, 2015 , vol. 54, # 50 p. 15118 - 15121

Chromatin assembly during S phase: Contributions from histone deposition, DNA replication and the cell division cycle
Krude; Keller 2001 Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 2001 , vol. 58, # 5-6 p. 665 - 672

Synergistic self-assembly of RNA and DNA molecules, Seung Hyeon Ko, Min Su, Chuan Zhang, Alexander E. Ribbe, Wen Jiang & Chengde Mao, Nature Chemistry 2, 1050–1055 (2010)



We've gone over the self assembly scenario about a hundred times on this board. Do you think anyone bothers to read the research articles? Hell, no. I have a folder full of articles on the topic which I have posted over a long period of time.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




So, while the probabilities from chemistry should be enough to calculate reasonable rates, the exceptions to the rules are vexing. ... and there are issues like the efficiency of energy migration from receptor to ATP production in photosynthetic processes which are 'off the board' when compared to the stochastic and Van der Waals forces that should be expected from chemistry alone.


Look up bonding energies and rate constants. Start with a simple cyclic compound like a benzene ring. Now look up the bonding energy per double bond. Then calculate the rate constant for the formation of a string of benzene rings. If you do all that, out pops a nanotube. The point here is that chemistry is a synthesis and it's not linear. You're trying to put the process into a little box made of vertical and horizontal lines. It don't work that way. Get an organic chemistry book and figure it out.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I am well aware. But you also know, when one of us tries to dumb it down for them. They question why we are qualified, or why it was not quoted. So as usual, I put information out there, and if someone digs, good for them. If not, not my loss.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




n fact I would simply expect to find a physical process that describes how inorganic matter came to organic matter and then from the information in organic matter we would probably find many body plans arising probably in different areas and places over some period of time and these body plans would have variation among them as natural selection and random mutation took hold.


I would like to suggest that you also get an organic chemistry book AND an inorganic chemistry book.

In the meantime, you might benefit from this short video:




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I can recommend a couple of texts for him if he needs
Other wise he might grab March, and Cotton and Wilkenson then get confused.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

More vague and petty statements surprise surprise.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Phantom423

More vague and petty statements surprise surprise.


SerpentOfTheLamb: What is it you really want to know? In the King's English, please. Thanks



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You mean like saying a word such as semiotic. Then claim that explains it all. Now you've had two threads on semiotics, claiming that proves the hand of your God in creation .... so one wonders what your reason for pulling it out and waving it around like a Phallus is



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut




So, while the probabilities from chemistry should be enough to calculate reasonable rates, the exceptions to the rules are vexing. ... and there are issues like the efficiency of energy migration from receptor to ATP production in photosynthetic processes which are 'off the board' when compared to the stochastic and Van der Waals forces that should be expected from chemistry alone.


Look up bonding energies and rate constants. Start with a simple cyclic compound like a benzene ring. Now look up the bonding energy per double bond. Then calculate the rate constant for the formation of a string of benzene rings. If you do all that, out pops a nanotube. The point here is that chemistry is a synthesis and it's not linear. You're trying to put the process into a little box made of vertical and horizontal lines. It don't work that way. Get an organic chemistry book and figure it out.



I doubt that bonding energies and rate constants from an organic chemistry text give the whole story. There is evidence that quantum tunneling is required to explain energy transfer at the required efficiency.

Here's a page on Quantum biology on Wikipedia that explains it.

... and a few other links on the issue:

Quantum mechanics explains efficiency of photosynthesis - phys.org

Transfer of excitation energy in photosynthesis: some thoughts. - NCBI

edit on 1/12/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

He never said it gave the whole story. However understanding the molecular basis might help. I am biased however being a Chemist and Biochemist



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
If you assume that abiogenesis only happened once, from one source, and that one source only reproduced in the same evolutionary tree, that all tree branches survived, and that there is a "living" connection between all possible branches - then yes, there is an issue. Who is to say there weren't multiple sources of the original biological process (formation in different areas on earth, material from different areas in space, etc...) heck we could be still getting new biological material from space all the time - who can say if it will inject anything into earth's biosphere at a point in the future...



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
OMG, evolution can't explain every single detail of every single sub-process!!! This is HUGE DILEMMA!!!



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
OMG, evolution can't explain every single detail of every single sub-process!!! This is HUGE DILEMMA!!!


...has not yet explained, to be more accurate.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

sarc Its been a good game, but I guess Science better pack up and go home .... game over /sarc



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Venter, Dolittle, Woese, everyone who has questioned the phylogenetic tree from a universal common ancestor, they all must be Creationists, and sneaky ones, too.


Except of course, Venter for one, didn't say any such thing. Read the link.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




If natural processes gave rise to abiogenesis, then why couldn't life have always continually been starting in multiple abiogenic events (at an assumed low probability, because if it was happening all the time we'd probably see it).


Of course, we wouldn't necessarily see even if it was 'happening all the time'. Are you monitoring every chemical reaction that takes place around every thermal vent on the ocean floor all around the globe?



It takes a particular faith that it happened only once.


A faith that few, if any, scientists hold to. Witness the extraordinary effort to find evidence of life on other planets. Because it is so difficult to detect on our planet, we have to look for evidence on other planets.



Also, the 'life' created from abiogenesis would likely have been more basic and primitive than that coded and regulated in DNA. It would probably have been pre-genetic. As such, many different approaches to transmission of traits may have occurred, with DNA, probably built from RNA sequences, being the most successful.


Absolutely true AND the (so far) lack of evidence for those 'alternative' approaches surviving to the modern world indicates that the ONE approach that survived provided ample advantage to those proto-life forms that used it - an advantage so powerful that all those other approaches apparently disappeared from the biosphere at a very early stage.

Interestingly enough, the discovery and confirmation of such an alternative approach would CONFIRM the abiogenisis hypothesis wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut



Venter, Dolittle, Woese, everyone who has questioned the phylogenetic tree from a universal common ancestor, they all must be Creationists, and sneaky ones, too.


Except of course, Venter for one, didn't say any such thing. Read the link.


Please review the video of the discussion panel.

Venter, in response to a question from the astrpohysicist Paul Davies, inferred that life had had different starting points. In the video (from the 9 minutes 4 seconds point), Venter clearly states "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up. There may a bush of life... There is not a tree of life".

As further evidence of what Venter was actually saying just watch the video a little longer to see Dick Dawkins response, which was, "I'm intrigued at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction". Dawkins seems to be in no confusion about what Venter said.

So, Venter did explicitly say such a thing.

The argument provided in the "Duelling Scientists" article ignores that the tree of life as a conceptual framework allows us to test the science, even though such a tree need not actually exist in fact. Venter throughout the video repeatedly referred to the conceptual framework of a tree of life but also stated clearly that it was not fact.

edit on 4/12/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut



Venter, Dolittle, Woese, everyone who has questioned the phylogenetic tree from a universal common ancestor, they all must be Creationists, and sneaky ones, too.


Except of course, Venter for one, didn't say any such thing. Read the link.


Please review the video of the discussion panel.

Venter, in response to a question from the astrpohysicist Paul Davies, inferred that life had had different starting points. In the video (from the 9 minutes 4 seconds point), Venter clearly states "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up. There may a bush of life... There is not a tree of life".

As further evidence of what Venter was actually saying just watch the video a little longer to see Dick Dawkins response, which was, "I'm intrigued at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction". Dawkins seems to have understood clearly what Venter was saying and seemed upset that the basis of his belief was under challenge.

So, Venter did explicitly say such a thing.

The argument provided in the "Duelling Scientists" article ignores that the tree of life as a conceptual framework allows us to test the science, even though such a tree need not actually exist in fact. Venter throughout the video repeatedly referred to the conceptual framework but also stated clearly that it was not fact.


there is still no dilemma, be it tree or bush or fungus.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut



Venter, Dolittle, Woese, everyone who has questioned the phylogenetic tree from a universal common ancestor, they all must be Creationists, and sneaky ones, too.


Except of course, Venter for one, didn't say any such thing. Read the link.


Please review the video of the discussion panel.

Venter, in response to a question from the astrpohysicist Paul Davies, inferred that life had had different starting points. In the video (from the 9 minutes 4 seconds point), Venter clearly states "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up. There may a bush of life... There is not a tree of life".

As further evidence of what Venter was actually saying just watch the video a little longer to see Dick Dawkins response, which was, "I'm intrigued at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction". Dawkins seems to have understood clearly what Venter was saying and seemed upset that the basis of his belief was under challenge.

So, Venter did explicitly say such a thing.

The argument provided in the "Duelling Scientists" article ignores that the tree of life as a conceptual framework allows us to test the science, even though such a tree need not actually exist in fact. Venter throughout the video repeatedly referred to the conceptual framework but also stated clearly that it was not fact.


there is still no dilemma, be it tree or bush or fungus.


This reminds me of a joke about various Russian communist leaders on a train. They are urgent to get to their destination but the train stops to refuel.

Lenin stands up and announces that he will inspire the engineers and get the train going. He leaves the carriage and comes back a minute or two later, announcing the train will be moving soon as the workers have been inspired to redouble their efforts.

After a minute with no movement, Stalin stands up and says "I'll sort it out". He leaves the carriage and there are numerous gunshots. He returns and sits down, saying "The workers who failed in their national duty have been removed. The train will be going soon, new staff have been appointed and they are highly motivated".

After some more minutes without any movement, Breznev stands and pulls down all the blinds over all the windows in the carriage. He sits down and announces "the train is now moving".



edit on 4/12/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join