Evolution

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote:Single-celled predator evolves tiny, human-like ‘eye’
A new example of concurrent evolution
Couldn't find the mention of the predecessor species without the eye, therefore not an example of evolution.

Article should have been titled, "researchers discover an eye".
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Evolution

Post by Typhoon »

May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Evolution

Post by Typhoon »

Quanta | Dividing Droplets Could Explain Life’s Origin
Researchers have discovered that simple “chemically active” droplets grow to the size of cells and spontaneously divide, suggesting they might have evolved into the first living cells.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04 ... rna-bases/
They redid the Miller-Urey experiments, but this time they looked for the presence of a different chemical: formamide, which has one atom each of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, with three hydrogens thrown in. While simple, it's an important chemical building block. Experiments by other researchers have shown that under the right conditions, formamide can react with itself to form all of the four RNA bases.

Miller and Urey wouldn't have known how significant of a finding it was, but it definitely showed up in the new work. It didn't go on to form any of the RNA bases, but that was expected, as these reactions need specific catalysts or radiation at UV wavelengths. The authors, however, noted that researchers had described another option for catalyzing the formamide reactions: shock waves, such as those from extraterrestrial impacts.

Conveniently, the team had access to the Prague Asterix Laser System, which can generate Terawatt-sized pulses. They used the system to mimic the sorts of shock waves that an impact would produce.

In the shock wave reactions, formamide was also formed. But it went on to form all four of the bases found in RNA. Most of them were just present in small quantities, some barely above the detection limits. Of course, the shock waves of a real impact would be larger and more sustained, so the quantities should scale considerably.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

I have a problem. I have been learning too much. My science education centers around Physics but due to certain factors I have been learning A LOT of biology. A LOT.

I have a non trolling question. I bring it here because if you go to forums specializing in this field it's a shouting match of word sophistry.

So it goes as follows.

1. Can a key fob randomly and spontaneously generate in nature? No
2. Can a blank sheet of paper generate E=MC^2 in writing randomly and spontaneously? No
3. Can a blank hard drive randomly and spontaneously generate an operating system? No
4. Can a chemical structure that is more complex than any computer operating system (DNA) spontaneously and randomly generate itself in nature? No (and this is before we get to the complexity of a cell)

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

It seems that the religion of Sam Harris/Dawkins/de grasse Tyson is as fake as any other.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: DNA

Post by noddy »

coupla points.

this has become a god of the gaps argument, you have shifted from dinosaurs turning into chickens and moved to the weakest part of the evolution story, the first DNA.

using complexity as an argument doesnt really work, it creates the false problem of something needing to start at full complexity rather than getting more complex over time.

evolution is only a religion to the scary people who are trying to turn science into a religion, science doesnt have belief like religion does, its just is the best explanation we currently have using the facts we currently have.

i personally will not lose any sleep if science comes up with a better story than evolution, the origins of life are not vital day to day information.

this is why religious people can claim mystical sky gods did it, however that explanation is lacking in all the facts, not just some of them.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

coupla points
noddy wrote: this has become a god of the gaps argument, you have shifted from dinosaurs turning into chickens and moved to the weakest part of the evolution story, the first DNA.
No, I'm not arguing for a God or a gap. I'm pointing out an impossibility.
using complexity as an argument doesnt really work, it creates the false problem of something needing to start at full complexity rather than getting more complex over time.
No. Key fobs do not spontaneously generate, neither does information spontaneously generate on blank paper. It simply doesn't happen. No precursor to DNA spontaneously generates, in fact there are no know precursors to DNA. It is complex beyone anyone's ability to comprehend. And Dawkins/Harris/Tyson believe it spontaneously generates. It doesn't.

Also, the argument, or observation more likely, is not complexity, but creating information. DNA is loaded with more information than anything known to man, yet information has never been observed to spontaneously generate is not known to be possible.
evolution is only a religion to the scary people who are trying to turn science into a religion, science doesnt have belief like religion does, its just is the best explanation we currently have using the facts we currently have.
It's near impossible these days to find a scientist who is like this. Near impossible.
i personally will not lose any sleep if science comes up with a better story than evolution, the origins of life are not vital day to day information.

this is why religious people can claim mystical sky gods did it, however that explanation is lacking in all the facts, not just some of them.
Not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is the spontaneous generation of DNA or a cell is as fantastical as unicorns and leprechauns, and people with a straight face will tell me it's science. It doesn't happen and didn't happen.

My point is two fold, and simple, and straightforward.

1. Is there any evidence anywhere that DNA, which is orders of magnitude more complex than an operating system, spontaneously and randomly generates. My research is that there is no evidence whatsoever.

2. If there is no evidence whatsoever, then believing in that thing is FAITH, the same faith children have in the tooth fairy. As such nobody who believes in such a fairy tale can point fingers at anyone else over their religions.

This is NOT a process of elimination argument. Commonly you will see people say there is only creationism or evolution and if I disprove one then it proves the other. This is not true. Any theory has to be proven on it's own merits. As such, evolution of life from the inanimate currently requires faith and has no evidence to rely on.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: DNA

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

noddy wrote:coupla points.

this has become a god of the gaps argument, you have shifted from dinosaurs turning into chickens and moved to the weakest part of the evolution story, the first DNA.

using complexity as an argument doesnt really work, it creates the false problem of something needing to start at full complexity rather than getting more complex over time.

evolution is only a religion to the scary people who are trying to turn science into a religion, science doesnt have belief like religion does, its just is the best explanation we currently have using the facts we currently have.

i personally will not lose any sleep if science comes up with a better story than evolution, the origins of life are not vital day to day information.

this is why religious people can claim mystical sky gods did it, however that explanation is lacking in all the facts, not just some of them.
Irreducible complexity is a strong argument for why evolution is less useful beneath the varietal level. Darwin never tried to explain why plants and animals diverged.

DNA is an irreducible complexity. The probability of a single amino acid arising at random from four gases is less than 1/10^40. Science requires 1/10^2 as acceptible evidence. Engineering requires much greater precision but 1/10^40 approaches the asymptote of logical impossibility.

I can't imagine the probability of four amino acids arising by chance, and DNA is way beyond that.

As a practical consideration it is more than reasonable to conclude that there is an additional, non-physical dimension to physical reality.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: DNA

Post by noddy »

they have actually got quite good evidence on the 4 RNA bases being able to form from primal sludge with lightning. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2046&start=75

irreducable complexity is not a truth, its just gaps in knowledge.

the old anti evolution argument was irreducible complexity on the eyeball, yet the evolutionists showed a step by step increase in complexity was there.

i personally havent kept up with the newest theories on the first DNA, it always was the weakest part of the argument with the least real proof to it.

still, this is god of the gaps stuff if all the arguments after the first DNA are being dropped.

the claim that DNA has to be full complexity from the start doesnt seem true to me - a very simple first version that does nothing but replicate (like a primitive virus) and then slowly acquires new features one at a time over billions of years is not out of bounds.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote: it always was the weakest part of the argument with the least real proof to it.
I'm discovering no proof at all, hence the thread.
still, this is god of the gaps stuff if all the arguments after the first DNA are being dropped.
I'm not arguing a god or a gap.
the claim that DNA has to be full complexity from the start doesnt seem true to me - a very simple first version that does nothing but replicate (like a primitive virus) and then slowly acquires new features one at a time over billions of years is not out of bounds.
Show me anywhere DNA of partial complexity.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Keep in mind this is before we get to spontaneously creating a cell. DNA without a cell or vice versa is a car without a drivetrain.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: DNA

Post by noddy »

no its not.

its a chemical reaction that enables more chemical reactions, its rather mundane

the first dna, in primal sludge can do nothing but trigger more primal sludge into forming the same structure, like some kind of organic crystal.

if certain combinations of those attract other molecules, then bits of cell can form and you end up with something virus like - no life, no complexity, just bits of dna surrounded by a casing

if one of those gets a wee bit more complexity, over billions of years, then the shell casing can gain more features.

none of this proof of course, its just a demonstration that it doesnt have to be full featured from the first version.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote: none of this proof of course.
Boy you are right about that. An absence of proof requires faith though, and all I'm asking is if some of us get to believe in that which has no proof we all get to.

And crystals contain and generate no information.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote:no its not.

its a chemical reaction that enables more chemical reactions, its rather mundane.

the first dna, in primal sludge can do nothing but trigger more primal sludge into forming the same structure, like some kind of organic crystal.

if certain combinations of those attract other molecules, then bits of cell can form and you end up with something virus like - no life, no complexity, just bits of dna surrounded by a casing

if one of those gets a wee bit more complexity, over billions of years, then the shell casing can gain more features.

none of this proof of course, its just a demonstration that it doesnt have to be full featured from the first version.
Scientifically, your argument appears to be crystals exist, therefore DNA. Do you see the problem with that?
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: DNA

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
noddy wrote: none of this proof of course.
Boy you are right about that. An absence of proof requires faith though, and all I'm asking is if some of us get to believe in that which has no proof we all get to.

And crystals contain and generate no information.
the "dna contains information" thing is not factual , its an anthropomorphic metaphor for children.

it doesnt contain information, it has combinations of molecules which enable certain chemical reactions to take place provided those molecules are in the right chemical solutions.

more like a catalyst or an enzyme, not like an instructional book that "something" reads.

you keep adding more steps to the chain of the reaction and you get more complex things being built.

its rather boring and lacking in wonder, which is the problem many folks have with it, the thought we might be just chemical reactions.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

On a tablet, but it seems like we are back at the zero proof problem. IE these theoretical building blocks are as impossible to find as randomly spontaneously generated DNA. Where can I go in nature and observe any of this.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: DNA

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
noddy wrote:no its not.

its a chemical reaction that enables more chemical reactions, its rather mundane.

the first dna, in primal sludge can do nothing but trigger more primal sludge into forming the same structure, like some kind of organic crystal.

if certain combinations of those attract other molecules, then bits of cell can form and you end up with something virus like - no life, no complexity, just bits of dna surrounded by a casing

if one of those gets a wee bit more complexity, over billions of years, then the shell casing can gain more features.

none of this proof of course, its just a demonstration that it doesnt have to be full featured from the first version.
Scientifically, your argument appears to be crystals exist, therefore DNA. Do you see the problem with that?
that wasnt my argument.

my argument was that its theoretically possible for DNA to start from a simpler position than you claimed it did.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

How so. Where can I go see it.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: DNA

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:On a tablet, but it seems like we are back at the zero proof problem. IE these theoretical building blocks are as impossible to find as randomly spontaneously generated DNA. Where can I go in nature and observe any of this.
we dont have proof of the origin of DNA, quite correct.

that gap is currently quite gappy.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Are we talking theoretically possible like god is theoretically possible?
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:On a tablet, but it seems like we are back at the zero proof problem. IE these theoretical building blocks are as impossible to find as randomly spontaneously generated DNA. Where can I go in nature and observe any of this.
we dont have proof of the origin of DNA, quite correct.

that gap is currently quite gappy.
It would seem so. One might say it requires a leap. A leap of faith
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: DNA

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Are we talking theoretically possible like god is theoretically possible?
yep.

however the only proof that god exists is other humans telling me that.

evolution has atleast got the fossil record showing the critters can and do change over millions of years.

both lack a convincing origin story.

the god argument has the problem of god appearing from nothing or always existing, it just avoids that bit of the problem altogether
ultracrepidarian
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: DNA

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
noddy wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:On a tablet, but it seems like we are back at the zero proof problem. IE these theoretical building blocks are as impossible to find as randomly spontaneously generated DNA. Where can I go in nature and observe any of this.
we dont have proof of the origin of DNA, quite correct.

that gap is currently quite gappy.
It would seem so. One might say it requires a leap. A leap of faith

nope.

it requires honesty that we dont know something, no faith required in that.

i absolutely and totally believe humans know jack lavender about the origins of the universe but we have a lot of fun finding out little bits of information about it.

some like to short circuit that with faith, thats good for them. i dont have a problem with that either.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: DNA

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote: nope.

it requires honesty that we dont know something, no faith required in that.
I'm addressing that Harris/Dawkins/Tyson do believe it and practice faith while denouncing others for doing the same.
i absolutely and totally believe humans know jack lavender about the origins of the universe but we have a lot of fun finding out little bits of information about it.

some like to short circuit that with faith, thats good for them. i dont have a problem with that either.
As long as everyone is honest about it.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: DNA

Post by noddy »

lots of folk consider dawkins, tyson and recently, nye, to be overly rabid and lacking in clarity, they also regularly reach beyond any expertise they might personally have.

they do attract a certain type of anti religious crowd that appear to be powered by bitterness, no arguments on any of that.

however a wise man once told me its a binary political battle about who can control the schools and the funding, their is no room for triangles and tree beards, you either impress the youngens with your charisma or you go home.

in that regard, they appear to be doing well, despite alienating the more thoughtful types.
ultracrepidarian
Post Reply