How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

a reply to: luthier

Panspermia is an interesting concept. It doesnt negate ID because of the infinite regress problem. Its philosophy 101.

I'll disagree with that. Nature isn't redundant. Two pathways isn't energy efficient. IMO it's one way or the other - either macromolecular organization or ID. The preponderance of evidence is for structural organization in compatible environments.

God could be a programmer. It doeant have to be directly related to creation, panspermia also means there are far more advanced areas of the universe than we are in in terms of age of the universe post big bang.

It could also be an alien playing a video game. The point is that it's unknowable - there's no way to collect evidence for a deity or an alien playing with a computer. I think it's a waste of time to even consider it unless there's evidence. There has been speculation that our universe and us are computer simulations. I think that one's a waste of time too until we solve some of the more pressing issues like quantum gravity.

What you seem to fail to understand is how proteins were formed to begin with and what was theorized was present directly after the big bang and how those elements would form proteins. Also just to point out many scientists believe amino acids 4 billion years ago on earth created proteins that created self replicating dna. Proteins come from amino acids. Amino acids are the building block. Not the other way around as you are confusing.

I understand very well how proteins are assembled. I intentionally linked that research article which describes a protein scaffold developed to demonstrate how nucleic acids can code for a functional protein in vitro. The point was to demonstrate that self assembly is a well known phenomenon of nature - peptides and amino acids among them. There are many articles describing self assembly of nanostructures as well as macromolecular structures. And again, this is just more evidence that a deity isn't required to organize molecules or life itself. The process is most likely ubiquitous throughout the universe.

We have developed an artificial protein scaffold, herewith called a protein vector, which allows linking of an in-vitro synthesised protein to the nucleic acid which encodes it through the process of self-assembly. This protein vector enables the direct physical linkage between a functional protein and its genetic code.

The principle is demonstrated using a streptavidin-based protein vector (SAPV) as both a nucleic acid binding pocket and a protein display system. We have shown that functional proteins or protein domains can be produced in vitro and physically linked to their DNA in a single enzymatic reaction. Such self-assembled protein-DNA complexes can be used for protein cloning, the cloning of protein affinity reagents or for the production of proteins which self-assemble on a variety of solid supports. Self-assembly can be utilised for making libraries of protein-DNA complexes or for labelling the protein part of such a complex to a high specific activity by labelling the nucleic acid associated with the protein.

In summary, self-assembly offers an opportunity to quickly generate cheap protein affinity reagents, which can also be efficiently labelled, for use in traditional affinity assays or for protein arrays instead of conventional antibodies.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

Panspermia is an interesting concept. It doesnt negate ID because of the infinite regress problem. Its philosophy 101.

I'll disagree with that. Nature isn't redundant. Two pathways isn't energy efficient. IMO it's one way or the other - either macromolecular organization or ID. The preponderance of evidence is for structural organization in compatible environments.

God could be a programmer. It doeant have to be directly related to creation, panspermia also means there are far more advanced areas of the universe than we are in in terms of age of the universe post big bang.

It could also be an alien playing a video game. The point is that it's unknowable - there's no way to collect evidence for a deity or an alien playing with a computer. I think it's a waste of time to even consider it unless there's evidence. There has been speculation that our universe and us are computer simulations. I think that one's a waste of time too until we solve some of the more pressing issues like quantum gravity.

What you seem to fail to understand is how proteins were formed to begin with and what was theorized was present directly after the big bang and how those elements would form proteins. Also just to point out many scientists believe amino acids 4 billion years ago on earth created proteins that created self replicating dna. Proteins come from amino acids. Amino acids are the building block. Not the other way around as you are confusing.

I understand very well how proteins are assembled. I intentionally linked that research article which describes a protein scaffold developed to demonstrate how nucleic acids can code for a functional protein in vitro. The point was to demonstrate that self assembly is a well known phenomenon of nature - peptides and amino acids among them. There are many articles describing self assembly of nanostructures as well as macromolecular structures. And again, this is just more evidence that a deity isn't required to organize molecules or life itself. The process is most likely ubiquitous throughout the universe.

We have developed an artificial protein scaffold, herewith called a protein vector, which allows linking of an in-vitro synthesised protein to the nucleic acid which encodes it through the process of self-assembly. This protein vector enables the direct physical linkage between a functional protein and its genetic code.

The principle is demonstrated using a streptavidin-based protein vector (SAPV) as both a nucleic acid binding pocket and a protein display system. We have shown that functional proteins or protein domains can be produced in vitro and physically linked to their DNA in a single enzymatic reaction. Such self-assembled protein-DNA complexes can be used for protein cloning, the cloning of protein affinity reagents or for the production of proteins which self-assemble on a variety of solid supports. Self-assembly can be utilised for making libraries of protein-DNA complexes or for labelling the protein part of such a complex to a high specific activity by labelling the nucleic acid associated with the protein.

In summary, self-assembly offers an opportunity to quickly generate cheap protein affinity reagents, which can also be efficiently labelled, for use in traditional affinity assays or for protein arrays instead of conventional antibodies.

Your response makes no logical sense.

Nature is not redundant doesnt make sense and it's an observational fallacy. Nature is plenty redundant. Genes for one.

Also you are type of person who doesnt see theoretical physics as important. That is just ridiculous.

The reason people think there is a hologram, or there is say a simulation is in fact because of evidence they believe and test.

We are talking fermilabs for God sakes.

You dont seem to understand very well how proteins work since you told me I had amino acids being the source of the evolution of dna backwards. .

I infact gave you the basic formula for glycine and it went over your head.

If we only studied what is readily event or intuitive we would never have discovered quantum mechanics.

Also the assumption we have to work on one thing like solving quantum gravity is a total misunderstanding of how the field of science does actual research through universities and coop labs.

a reply to: luthier

Get a few good books and read the references posted. I don't think you get it.

a reply to: Phantom423

what dont I get? That you dont understand physics or bio chemistry enough to have a debate?

a reply to: luthier

No, you don't get it.

a reply to: Phantom423

Oh I do. I just am following it all the way back, considering how and what conditions molecular bonding needs, and the massive probabilities of a vast universe.

He doesn't get it. Have you ever heard of noodle bakers?

a reply to: coomba98

I don't know. Probably. Its still not evidence specific to manipulation. We see that sort of thing occurring in nature. I'm not against this being an option, I just want to know what would denote ancient aliens futzing with DNA.

a reply to: Noinden

It’s the rh factor which is proclaimed to be the evidence for human genetic manipulation in the past...
Oddly enough ancient history as well as the Bible both make such claims of human genetic manipulation...
Furthermore it has been prophesied that it would happen again and be a sign of what would happen afterwards...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Also just to say again survival of the species in human beings can simply be knowledge. No other animal has this situation. No other animal has the concept another being has it's own thoughts.

Humans could have been rounded up and paired, could have been given artificial enviornemental forces etc...

When I look at what we currently do in experiments I think well, that is possible so it must be possible it has happened before us.

Selective breeding or genetic modification.

All while natural evolution is effecting the creations over time as well.

Or not.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You of course can show that this is the case. Many things have been proclaimed the work of gods, or aliens, or holy pasta. But they can also be shown to be perfectly natural.

When talking science, one needs to show proof to the level science requires to prove this.

a reply to: Noinden

Its also good to remember how small the sample size is of ancient artifacts and our limited knowledge of genetics.

Many people over state what we know rather than just being the best current model.

a reply to: luthier

Not overstating it. I am pointing out that this is Hitchen's Razor, in taht there is an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary proof. Like I said I am not discounting it, I want actual data. The number of "ancient artifacts" (I assume you mean Alien?), that have been shown to be so are zero. Just as there is zero proof of deities. It is all UPG. I am ok with UPG being religious and all. However I know its UPG, and do not say it is absolute proof. Science requires data others can examine. When enough people independently come to the same conclusion, you reach commonality.

a reply to: Noinden

I wasnt saying you were just reminding..

And no I meant early hunter and gatherer I wasn't clear there.




We have very limited records to study the older we go.

The timeline has drastically changed since I first studied anthropology even in the early nineties in college. That's still only from a few dozen sites.

Entire hominid and arcaic human species we didnt see from the genetic record, or know had admixture, until finding another site.

Because of the unique quality humans have we learn for survival and are incredibly adaptive because of it. Even species not in our genes actually contributed to our survival through teaching most likely so let's say we learned fire from earlier man, that effected our genetics.

Just saying anthro beyond civilization is similar to early physics. We just dont have the base yet to call things for sure. We have some evidence but compared to other sciences the sample size is fractional. Meaning it's the best current model but could be significantly wrong.

I don't believe in ancient aliens but the probability of that and the correct amino acids landing at the same time they were able to be in contact with each other in the right conditions doesnt seem as far from each other as some people (not you) like to proclaim.

If it were already self replicating protein the probability becomes better for life but I need an explanation how it exists and survived in space as well.

a reply to: luthier

Oh ok. I agree the older we go, the less complete the records. That is not realy an excuse for somepeople assuming "aliens" but they seem to think that.

We don't know enough of how life began, or how things changed. The only real way to fix that would be a time machine

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: rukia

"......Now, if you want a scientific reason, then there are males and females due to the need for the survival of the species. Otherwise, the species would die out if all of the members were unable to breed. Therefore, having the ability to reproduce guarantees the survival of the species".

And WHO of WHAT needs this species called Man to survive?

Humans make sure cattle survive so we can eat them - What primal force wants MAN to survive?

And most of all WHY

that is the scariest question of all. because the answer is, humans are not necessary in the slightest. there is no force primal or otherwise that depends on humans in any capacity. our species could go extinct tomorrow and the rest of the universe would not notice at all.

a reply to: Noinden

Agree. Most of my background is philosophy. But love philosophy of time and space etc..cosmology.

Just fun stuff to think about. Humans on what as far as we know is our own may make the sexes not necessary depending on the race between idiocy and intelligence. The singularity if it were to happen with man and computer and the reverse engineering of dna could likely make sexes unimportant. Or we encounter a bigger problem when using too much synthetic force. If that were to exist for thousands of years I am ot sure what that means for adaptation except that we synthesized evolution somehow while surely whatever the forces on evolution are on the quantum scale still effect whatever is created.


Strange territory.

Sorry about the confusion. I dont support or believe ideas about cosmology except as thought experiments to throw away logical fallacies that could be present.

a reply to: Noinden

You the self proclaimed scientist does not know why the rh factor is said to be the greatest evidence of human genetic manipulation?

Why am I not surprised that you so readily dismiss the work of actual scientists?

You do realize the rh factor is one of the biggest issues with proving evolution of ape to man don’t you?

When did you goto school?

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Noinden

Again there is no evidene in our DNA that it was messed with.

Isnt there something in the ancient alien crowd about fused chromosomes or something? Or some evidence of genetic manipulation?

Obvious I dont know if this is true or not, just remember hearing it.

Coomba98

Try this:

Human DNA ‘was designed by aliens’, say scientists

"HUMAN DNA was designed by ALIENS, scientists who spent 13 years working on the human genome have sensationally claimed". By SEAN MARTIN

"A pair of scientists from Kazakhstan believe that our species was designed by a higher power, alien civilisation that either wanted to preserve a message in our DNA or simply plant life on other planets. Maxim A. Makukov of the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute and Vladimir I. Shcherbak from the al-Farabi Kazakh National University spent 13 years working for the Human Genome Project – a mission that hoped to map out human DNA. Their conclusion was that humans were designed by a higher power, with a “set of arithmetic patterns and ideographic symbolic language” encoded into our DNA........."

"They state that the sudden boom in evolution experienced on Earth billions of years ago is a sign of something happening on a higher level that we are not aware of, and that mathematical code in DNA cannot explain evolution. Mr Makulov said: “Sooner or later … we have to accept the fact that all life on Earth carries the genetic code of our extraterrestrial cousins and that evolution is not what we think it is........”

See whole article here:
www.express.co.uk...

If true that our DNA is 'coded', and if so that we share those same DNA sequences with all 'Life as we know it': that might indicate that whatever created DNA, would not fit within the description of 'Life as we know it'.

(This is not scientific, but merely a thought exercise).

a reply to: Nothin

Is there actual research you can post for us?