Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Nothin

It's a good question and the answer is not straight forward.

“The true logic of this world is in the calculus of probabilities.”
   —James Clerk Maxwell

If you scramble an egg, what's the likelihood that the egg would reconstruct itself to the original shape? We would say zero. But in fact, if you wait long enough there's an infinitely small probability that the egg could reform itself. When we say that things are "impossible", we really mean that the likelihood of that event happening is so small that we simply disregard it. But it could happen.

The [0,1] interval is a complete metric space. Mathematicians use intervals in analytical techniques. Intervals can be anything - [-1,1]. It's a distinct measure of something. So for instance, the interval [0,1] can be any number within that range including 0 and 1. And that range is infinite. It's something quite abstract to most people, but to mathematicians and physicists, it has a lot of meaning.

Ok : so then zero and one are included as points within a probability scale, right ?

So if zero means impossible : then impossible, is possible ? ( Albeit highly improbable. )
If impossible is possible, then what is impossible ?

In other words : if zero can be ; then is there no 'real' zero ?

... This is because 0 is impossible (sure that something will not happen). ...

Is that considered a certainty ?
Is it certain that some things will never occur, or happen ?

Are both zero and one : possible ?
Or are they both impossible ?

a reply to: Nothin

The simplest answer I can give you is that for every day situations, you're not going to be thinking mathematically. So using the term "impossible" has some meaning to the average person.

If you're thinking mathematically, trying to solve a statistical problem or some such, then you must use mathematical logic which includes probability theory.

The poster who claims that evolution or whatever is "impossible" says so from a perspective of the average person. He may think it's absolutely impossible, but he never analyzed the problem statistically. And that's fine. There's only a couple of people who participate on this board that have professional backgrounds in science, particularly mathematics. He isn't one of them. So the argument is a moot point. It's meaningless.

If you really want to learn statistics and probability theory, I'll be happy to give you links. But they won't help you if you don't do the homework and actually solve problems. It's the only way to fully understand how "zero" is defined in science.

a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks for the offer, but honestly wouldn't do the homework.

Am not intent on thinking only in a mathematical way, but am trying to hold all of the general concepts being discussed, in consideration at the same time .

It's rather frustrating to hear that the comprehension of the ideas being discussed, might be beyond my grasp.
But that doesn't mean that they may indeed be beyond my grasp.

Nonetheless : those ideas may be 'true', or 'real', or 'accurate' ; or not.

Possibly just this instance of consciousness, might be considered highly improbable.
But here it appears to be !

So here we appear to be : a bunch of hairless apes, supposedly sitting on a whirling-twirling rock, supposedly whizing through the supposed universe at speeds that are not understandable on a human scale.

Searching for a meaning, in a context that appears utterly meaningless to some, and chock-full of meaning to others.
Meaning in evolution : don't know, and find it awkward to think-about.

So for today : we'll just say that impossible is possible, although highly improbable.
And continue to contemplate whether 'certain' is possible : and also highly improbable.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: AlienView


Well in evolution there is not random anything its guided by natural selection. Life by its very nature will do what it needs to to survive. All life only truly has 2 purposes survive and multiply.

Yes I know - But I don't know why ???

As you say "All life only truly has 2 purposes survive and multiply."

But we still don't know why it wants to survive ??? Or, why it wants to multiply ???

Say I have the ability to create a fully automated android that can think like Human and I want to add Human qualities.

The thinking, reasoning, logic of the machine, well we can do that now - But can I give my machine "A will to live",
"A will to survive" and maybe even "A will to reproduce" ???? - Probably not, because Man does not undrstand the narure of the survival impulse, even though he can see it in all biological life - He still does not understand it - the roots of exiting life,
even with all the science, Evolutionary observations, etc. - still remain occult.

a reply to: AlienView

Well if you have a biologicl imperitive then that would be the meaning of life. There is certain things all life seeks to do for example.

Territorialism is a fairly fundamental feature of all living organisms you see it in nature everywhere, Observing living organisms in nature suggests that the step before procreation is to establish a territory within which they may hunt, breed, and ensure the growth of their offspring.This also would include competition as it fights for resources.

Then we hit reproduction, Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so whenever physiological and environmental conditions allow it are universal among living organisms.

A living organisms' need to improve their quality of life ehich seems to serve the purpose of improving their chances of survival.

And here is the big one life tends to form groups to survive. Could be single celled organism working together to create a larger organism or a pack of wolves hunting.Nature likes groups almost every species does it with only a few exceptions.

There are some other imperatives as the species intelligence grows but these are the main ones i can think of.

a reply to: dragonridr

Again I understand all you are saying and have no disagreement with it.

But, and also again, do not understand the intrinsic force causing life to act this way

We see how it acts, and seems to act this way throughout the biological spectrum of organic life

- but what is causing and/or motivating it to act this way ?


Say we can create a single cell from scratch - Put it together exactly as we observe it, cell wall and all that is inside.

Then how do you turn it on, make it breathe, make it want to reproduce into two cells - Anotheer words what is programming
that cell, and for that matter all life, to continue ?

Soemewhere, somehow, there must be a program and/or a programmer making it go.

Aristotle said there was an "unmoved mover' moving everything and of course all religions have their god.

And of course today you have the "all that exists is a simulation like hologram"

Still who or what created or designed the program would have to be looked into

- And how does it work ? and What, if anything, is the objective

a reply to: AlienView

Your simply asking how life was created back to square one. doesnt matter how really what matters is what it does. Its very nature as you would say. your asking questions like how does a duck learn to swim? Well the best answer is it just does it. Like our duck all life does certain things.

Characteristics:

Life Is Organized
Life Is Chemically Distinct from Its Environment
Life Is Homeostatic
Life Takes Energy and Matter from the Environment and Transforms Them
Life Responds to Stimuli from the Environment
Life Reproduces
Life Is Adapted to Its Environment

Now why well a single celled organism isnt asking why it does something and cotemplating his existance. In fact only man is crazy enough to tackle this subject. For our lifeform hes living to survive and to survive requires it to do certain things.

a reply to: AlienView

The driving factor is self assembly. Self assembly occurs at the molecular level for nucleotides, peptides, proteins - all complex molecules. It's part of evolution. There's no need for a grand creator or a puzzle maker. It's simply how nature works.

DNA Self-Assembly: From Chirality to Evolution
www.mdpi.com...

Abstract
Transient or long-term DNA self-assembly participates in essential genetic functions. The present review focuses on tight DNA-DNA interactions that have recently been found to play important roles in both controlling DNA higher-order structures and their topology. Due to their chirality, double helices are tightly packed into stable right-handed crossovers. Simple packing rules that are imposed by DNA geometry and sequence dictate the overall architecture of higher order DNA structures. Close DNA-DNA interactions also provide the missing link between local interactions and DNA topology, thus explaining how type II DNA topoisomerases may sense locally the global topology. Finally this paper proposes that through its influence on DNA self-assembled structures, DNA chirality played a critical role during the early steps of evolution. View Full-Text

There are literally hundreds of scientific articles about self assembly. Go to Google Scholar and search for molecular self assembly.

I posted a paper written by Alan Turning here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I came across this paper which wasn't published until 1990. Most of you will know who Alan Turing was (think ENIGMA WWII).

The argument about self assembly of organic molecules vs intelligent design has been discussed ad infinitum on this board.
In the end, no one here or anywhere else has presented evidence for intelligent design. However, thousands of research papers, including the one posted here, amount to overwhelming evidence for biological evolution to include self assembly.

This thread is not about the argument. It's about the facts.

Evolution continues - no grand scheme or designer required:

Human traits that emerged recently include the ability to free-dive for long periods of time, adaptations for living in high altitudes where oxygen concentrations are low, resistance to contagious diseases (such as malaria), fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence (or the ability to digest milk after weaning), lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels, thick hair shaft, dry ear wax, lower chances of drunkenness, higher body-mass index, reduced prevalence of Alzheimer's disease, lower susceptibility to diabetes, genetic longevity, shrinking brain sizes, and changes in the timing of menarche and menopause.

a reply to: Phantom423

Just because scietific papers say this is how something could have happened doesnt mean that it did happen so be careful in just saying this is it. As i was saying to the anti evolutionists we dont know how life started and may never know. But back to the topic of this thread it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesnt explain how life started and was never meant to.

a reply to: dragonridr


I agree with you. But the poster asked about "driving force". The driving force is the energy of molecular bonding. If bonds did not self assemble, life wouldn't be possible and evolution nonexistent.
How the first life began - no one knows.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: AlienView

The driving factor is self assembly.

I've already told you in multiple threads it needs to be monomer polymerization self-assembly for the theory to stand a chance. Monomer self-polymerization does not occur naturally.

Self assembly occurs at the molecular level for nucleotides, peptides, proteins - all complex molecules. It's part of evolution. There's no need for a grand creator or a puzzle maker. It's simply how nature works.

Self-assembly only occurs at the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structure. You need to be able to prove that monomers can self-assemble into polymer chains. Remember? We've been over this. They can't. There is no literature that shows monomers can self-polymerize. They need biological enzymes to orchestrate the process.

DNA Self-Assembly: From Chirality to Evolution
www.mdpi.com...
Transient or long-term DNA self-assembly participates in essential genetic functions. The present review focuses on tight DNA-DNA interactions that have recently been found to play important roles in both controlling DNA higher-order structures and their topology. Due to their chirality, double helices are tightly packed into stable right-handed crossovers. Simple packing rules that are imposed by DNA geometry and sequence dictate the overall architecture of higher order DNA structures. Close DNA-DNA interactions also provide the missing link between local interactions and DNA topology, thus explaining how type II DNA topoisomerases may sense locally the global topology. Finally this paper proposes that through its influence on DNA self-assembled structures, DNA chirality played a critical role during the early steps of evolution. View Full-Text


"There are literally hundreds of scientific articles about self assembly. Go to Google Scholar and search for molecular self assembly. "

Yes but none of those articles show that monomer self-polymerization is possible. The link you showed is referring to secondary structure. To put things in perspective, there can be no proper secondary, tertiary, or quaternary structure unless the polymer chain is made in proper order. Again, since monomers do no self-polymerize, you cannot get the formation of polymer chains through random chance, thereby making abiogenesis impossible.

The argument about self assembly of organic molecules vs intelligent design has been discussed ad infinitum on this board.
In the end, no one here or anywhere else has presented evidence for intelligent design.

Besides the fact that humans are intelligent. Intelligence comes from intelligence. But you know this.

This thread is not about the argument. It's about the facts.

The fact is, monomers do not self-polymerize, and therefore abiogenesis and by implication evolution are both impossible.

a reply to: AlienView

Hello, and welcome to page 4, of 'Digging-Deep with AV' !!

Why ?

Not getting lucky with answers eh ?

Why indeed.

What the heck is it, that driving-force behind all life ?

Why does life, appear to strive to live ?

Is it spirit ?

What exactly is it, that appears to be counter to the second law of thermodynamics ?

We used to call it : The spark of life.

Not that book that was written about electricity in the body. No-no-no.

Not that 'spark', or explosion of light that has supposedly been observed at the instant of conception.
But rather what 'force' is behind that sperm racing towards the egg.

Why ?

What kindles this spark ?
What is that supposed life-force, that animates life ?
What is the impetus ?

Is it light ? The sun ?
What animates particles ?
Why the heck do vibrating strings : vibrate ?

If we look too deep : there is no more particle or string vibrating : there is merely vibration, what ?
Why is the supposed quantum field excited ?
Not the mathematical formula nor reason, but the why.

Why

The Mystery at the Bottom of Physics. ( Contains swearing. )



It may be that there are no bloody physical strings, but merely theoretical strings ?

If we can't put our finger on it : how are we supposed to guess at it's meaning ?

Perhaps the answer is beyond the domain of science, and intellectual thought ?

Have you looked to the arts, and philosophy ?

a reply to: cooperton

What are you talking about did you get this froma website and misunderstand what they were saying? Photopolymerization reactions are chain-growth polymerizations which are initiated by the absorption of visible or ultraviolet light. However theres also step growth where 2 chains connect to form a longer chain.You can use acids you can use heat some others we have to prevent them from polymerizing and actually have to use inhibitors. Now im not a chemist but i was required to go over some chemistry for my PHD so let me say this unless i am misunderstanding you your very very wrong.

Most of the research currently is focussing on meteors. Meteors chemistry is very complex they contain sugar amino acids even contain adenine.

Now these carbonacous meteors with their organic molecules will self assemble into stable mebranes (lipids). Once you have this you have a natural lab for cells to be created. All life contains certain things first amino acids then protiens and lipids that encapsulate cells. So why lipids self assemble I wont get into right now in detail but its caused by the fact that lipids have 2 parts one that likes water and one part that doesnt.

Now if we were to enclose amino acids within these primitive cell walls the amino acids start producing protiens. This is now 2 of the 3 things we need to get life. Were over half way there now. Now back to our meteors as i said we found they contain sugars these cn be used to form RNA a simple form of DNA if you will. So we have now all 3 things we need on the early earth.

Now i will concede that the odds of these things coming together to form a cell is huge some would argue impossible. But this is where that part i was discussing with poker games the more poker games you play the oddds of getting a royal flush increases. So we dont have one amino acid acting at one place at one time but we have trillions upon trillions reacting in countless places over time. this is that probability part we are stacking the deck by playing lots of games at once. Now all this is perfectly plausible this could be how it started. Problem is we have no way to confirm this is indeed what happened.

So as i have said over and over WE HAVE KNOW WAY TO KNOW HOW LIFE STARTED!!!!! All we know is it was posssible.

a reply to: dragonridr

This subject has come up before with that poster. On each occasion, multiple citations were posted - which, of course, he never bothered to read.
The poster is not a scientist, has never been in a lab, knows nothing about chemistry, physics or mathematics. He belongs to a crackpot religion which perpetrates fraud and deception. Members have been prosecuted and jailed for fraud.
Engaging him is a waste of time. But you'll make your own decision in that regard.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

What are you talking about did you get this froma website and misunderstand what they were saying? Photopolymerization reactions are chain-growth polymerizations which are initiated by the absorption of visible or ultraviolet light. However theres also step growth where 2 chains connect to form a longer chain.You can use acids you can use heat some others we have to prevent them from polymerizing and actually have to use inhibitors. Now im not a chemist but i was required to go over some chemistry for my PHD so let me say this unless i am misunderstanding you your very very wrong.

None of these photopolymerization processes involve amino acid or nucleotide self-polymerization into polymer chains. Obviously there are some molecules that self-polymerize, but amino acids and nucleotides do not. Since amino acids and nucleotides do not self-polymerize, they need enzymatic proteins in order to do so. Since these enzymes are they themselves amino acid chains, it would be impossible to make these enzymes by random chance since amino acids do not self-polymerize.

Let's say by some miracle an amino acid chain managed to self-polymerize in the pre-biotic goo, you have to realize that amino acid chains (proteins) have a very quick half-life. This means the average time for half of a lot of proteins to degrade is somewhere around 24 hours according to this study. The study refers to proteins inside cells, so the actual half-life of proteins outside of cells will be remarkably lower. Meaning that if by miracle an amino acid were to self-polymerize into a 100+ polymer chain necessary to execute any sort of biological function, it would shortly decay thereafter.

Most of the research currently is focussing on meteors. Meteors chemistry is very complex they contain sugar amino acids even contain adenine.

Now these carbonacous meteors with their organic molecules will self assemble into stable mebranes (lipids). Once you have this you have a natural lab for cells to be created. All life contains certain things first amino acids then protiens and lipids that encapsulate cells. So why lipids self assemble I wont get into right now in detail but its caused by the fact that lipids have 2 parts one that likes water and one part that doesnt.

This is quite some faith you have.

Now if we were to enclose amino acids within these primitive cell walls the amino acids start producing protiens.

There can be no effective cell wall without transport proteins. If you can't yet produce proteins, there can be no effective cell wall. So no. Your imagination is just running wild.

This is now 2 of the 3 things we need to get life. Were over half way there now. Now back to our meteors as i said we found they contain sugars these cn be used to form RNA a simple form of DNA if you will. So we have now all 3 things we need on the early earth.

Again, even if somehow the RNA manages by miracle to self-polymerize into a coherent chain, it would decay shortly after. Even if by miracle it was an invincible chain of RNA defying all biochemical laws, it would STILL need RNA polymerase to be able to replicate the sequence. Since RNA polymerase is a large complex protein, there is no way you would have any RNA polymerases just swimming around. You need miracles upon miracles for your nihilist approach to the creation of life.

Now i will concede that the odds of these things coming together to form a cell is huge some would argue impossible. But this is where that part i was discussing with poker games the more poker games you play the oddds of getting a royal flush increases. So we dont have one amino acid acting at one place at one time but we have trillions upon trillions reacting in countless places over time. this is that probability part we are stacking the deck by playing lots of games at once. Now all this is perfectly plausible this could be how it started. Problem is we have no way to confirm this is indeed what happened.

It would be about as likely as a monkey being able to create a working Terminator Robot.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: dragonridr

This subject has come up before with that poster. On each occasion, multiple citations were posted - which, of course, he never bothered to read.

You're going to try to triple-down on this? You've tried to force this issue before and you always end up running away. Show me one article where nucleotides or amino acids self-polymerize without enzymes. Please save you and me some time and do not include any articles about secondary, tertiary, or quaternary structure self-polymerization. You're looking for primary structure polymerization.

a reply to: cooperton

None of these photopolymerization processes involve amino acid or nucleotide self-polymerization into polymer chains. Obviously there are some molecules that self-polymerize, but amino acids and nucleotides do not. Since amino acids and nucleotides do not self-polymerize, they need enzymatic proteins in order to do so. Since these enzymes are they themselves amino acid chains, it would be impossible to make these enzymes by random chance since amino acids do not self-polymerize.

Ok I figured out the problem you read about biochemistry and think that is the only way things can occur or you read something by someone else and they are misleading you. enzymatic proteins speed up the reaction but they can occur without it. Now amino acids were the first biomaterial to appear on earth. Why because they are made of nitrogen. The ultimate source of nitrogen for the biosynthesis of amino acids is atmospheric nitrogen, Amino acid synthesis can occur in a variety of ways. For example, amino acids can be synthesized from precursor molecules in simple steps. Alanine, aspartate, and glutamate are synthesized from keto acids called pyruvate, oxaloacetate, and alpha-ketoglutarate, respectively, after a transamination reaction step. Similarly, asparagine and glutamine are synthesized from aspartate and glutamate, respectively, by an amidation reaction step. The synthesis of other amino acids requires more steps but it isnt impossible by any means.

Let's say by some miracle an amino acid chain managed to self-polymerize in the pre-biotic goo, you have to realize that amino acid chains (proteins) have a very quick half-life. This means the average time for half of a lot of proteins to degrade is somewhere around 24 hours according to this study. The study refers to proteins inside cells, so the actual half-life of proteins outside of cells will be remarkably lower. Meaning that if by miracle an amino acid were to self-polymerize into a 100+ polymer chain necessary to execute any sort of biological function, it would shortly decay thereafter.

This is just wrong peptide bonds are quite stable kinetically; the lifetime of a peptide bond in an aqueous solution in the absence of a catalyst approaches 1000 years. with amino acids the linking of two amino acids is accompanied by the loss of a molecule of water. this is how peptide bonds form. now your other big error you seem to be under the impression amino acids are proteins they are not they form proteins. they are essentially the building blocks but do not require them.

You are using so much misinformation as to be confusing to even figure out what your trying to say. Lets save time here go do some research on ambiogenisis there are hundreds of papers available on experiments done. Stop relying on someone elses opinion when its obvious they are misleading you.

Having no faith in evolution is like saying the clock is not tikking.

Have man evolved...? would say no. But what men make have evolved.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Ok I figured out the problem you read about biochemistry and think that is the only way things can occur or you read something by someone else and they are misleading you. enzymatic proteins speed up the reaction but they can occur without it.

Nope it's mostly my own research, and I have accustomed others' research that makes empirical sense to me.

Now amino acids were the first biomaterial to appear on earth.

What's the evidence for this claim? You rely too much on belief and not enough on observable data.

The synthesis of other amino acids requires more steps but it isnt impossible by any means.

I am specifically referring to amino acid self-polymerization. Since it cannot happen on its own, life could not have come to be by random chance.

This is just wrong peptide bonds are quite stable kinetically; the lifetime of a peptide bond in an aqueous solution in the absence of a catalyst approaches 1000 years.

Peptide bonds have a very short lifespan in water. So the claim that all the abiogenesis and early evolution stuff took place in water is absolutely absurd. This small fact alone makes your theory impossible.

now your other big error you seem to be under the impression amino acids are proteins

I refer to "Amino acid chains", which are proteins. A protein is a chain of amino acids which are then folded in particular ways.

originally posted by: spy66
Having no faith in evolution is like saying the clock is not tikking.

Organisms adapt, they do not evolve. An organism can not gradually change into another organism.

a reply to: cooperton

This is very much like arguing with a 3-year-old. I explain something to you and you go no it's cant. Then I further explain why something can occur and of course, you say no it can't without offering any proof to the contrary. Now we side tracked this thread enough it was supposed to be about evolution.