Chemical evolution:

[Q-reeus]

You'll have to talk to q-reeus about that, in another thread he is going to start, to discuss his own personal myth.

Why? Having already covered all the essentials here?

 

[Michael 345]

q-reeus

Iggy long ago

 

[paddoboy]

Both of whose religious convictions essentially align with that of your missus. The one you are so proud of. As long as she keeps her mouth shut and never shares her beliefs. Otherwise, making her a fanatic god botherer. Interesting restriction that.

It's called tolerance and a tolerance that has now seen out 42 years....
Not much left q-reeus? obviously!

 

[paddoboy]

Iggy long ago

It's actually fun seeing someone who I was instrumental in dragging out of the closet, gradually reveal his agenda....

 

[iceaura]

The whole problem with your rudimentary pore claim is that even that much is dubious.

No, it's not.
It's observed physical fact - pores can be made in bacterial cell walls with simpler and cruder versions of the kinds of molecules employed by their flagella.

Recall that the sole plausible evolutionist blind chance way a cell wall can initially come about is via an accidental enveloping of a rudimentary self-replicating assemblage by a lipid bilayer.

That is false.
(Afaik no one claims that self-replicating assemblages necessarily came first, and enveloping lipid bilayers afterwards - it may be possible, but it's not the way to bet).

That dilemma and many others are ignored totally or at best hand-waved away by the unguided abiogenesis 'experts' and enthusiasts alike.

It doesn't exist. It's an invention of some people who don't understand either Darwinian or Lamarckian evolutionary theory, and screw up whenever they try to apply it.
Like this:

The newly acquired cell wall is a foreign invasion and unable to respond to a hoped for cell division process. But unless that division happens, the miraculous cell dies a lonely death.

You don't have a cell yet.
Why would your hypothetical preexisting "self replicating assemblage" (a radical notion) need a "response" from any of the lipid bilayers in its environment?

Your continual use of misleading terms such as "blind chance way" and "evolutionist" also seems to indicate a gap in your comprehension, an impression solidly reinforced by your inability to paraphrase a single one of the theories of evolution extant.

You have now made close to a dozen false claims about physical fact, and included several major errors in your presentation of theories you have not even successfully named. You have not dealt with this - are you still unaware of your errors?

 

[Q-reeus]

It's actually fun seeing someone who I was instrumental in dragging out of the closet, gradually reveal his agenda....

Don't kid yourself. No closet. No agenda. Just being free to challenge an unworkable belief system you trust with a religious fervor.

 

[Q-reeus]

No, it's not.
It's observed physical fact - pores can be made in bacterial cell walls with simpler and cruder versions of the kinds of molecules employed by their flagella.

That is false.
(Afaik no one claims that self-replicating assemblages necessarily came first, and enveloping lipid bilayers afterwards - it may be possible, but it's not the way to bet).

It doesn't exist. It's an invention of some people who don't understand either Darwinian or Lamarckian evolutionary theory, and screw up whenever they try to apply it.
Like this:
You don't have a cell yet.
Why would your hypothetical preexisting "self replicating assemblage" (a radical notion) need a "response" from any of the lipid bilayers in its environment?

Your continual use of misleading terms such as "blind chance way" and "evolutionist" also seems to indicate a gap in your comprehension, an impression solidly reinforced by your inability to paraphrase a single one of the theories of evolution extant.

You have now made close to a dozen false claims about physical fact, and included several major errors in your presentation of theories you have not even successfully named. You have not dealt with this - are you still unaware of your errors?

For all your talking down, nothing of substance is offered back. What exactly then is the 'correct evolutionary synthesis' re pathway to first cell? As a know-it-all you surely know.

 

[Write4U]

What exactly then is the 'correct evolutionary synthesis' re pathway to first cell?

Wrong question.
There is no single "correct evolutionary polymerization synthesis pathway.

Polymerization (chemical reaction)

Polymerization, any process in which relatively small molecules, called monomers, combine chemically to produce a very large chainlike or network molecule, called a polymer. The monomer molecules may be all alike, or they may represent two, three, or more different compounds.

Usually at least 100 monomer molecules must be combined to make a product that has certain unique physical properties—such as elasticity, high tensile strength, or the ability to form fibres—that differentiate polymers from substances composed of smaller and simpler molecules; often, many thousands of monomer units are incorporated in a single molecule of a polymer.

The formation of stable covalent chemical bonds between the monomers sets polymerization apart from other processes, such as crystallization, in which large numbers of molecules aggregate under the influence of weak intermolecular forces.

Schematic diagram of the emulsion-polymerization method. Monomer molecules and free-radical initiators are added to a water-based emulsion bath along with soaplike materials known as surfactants, or surface-acting agents. The surfactant molecules, composed of a hydrophilic (water-attracting) and hydrophobic (water-repelling) end, form a stabilizing emulsion before polymerization by coating the monomer droplets. Other surfactant molecules clump together into smaller aggregates called micelles, which also absorb monomer molecules. Polymerization occurs when initiators migrate into the micelles, inducing the monomer molecules to form large molecules that make up the latex particle.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Origins of life: Chemical evolution in a tiny Gulf Stream

As the carriers of hereditary information in all known lifeforms, RNA and DNA are at the heart of research into the origins of life. Both are linear molecules made up of four types of subunits called bases, and both can be replicated—and therefore transmitted. The sequence of bases encodes the genetic information. However, the chemical properties of RNA strands differ subtly from those of DNA. While DNA strands pair to form the famous double helix, RNA molecules can fold into three-dimensional structures that are much more varied and functionally versatile.

Indeed, specifically folded RNA molecules have been shown to catalyze chemical reactions both in the test-tube and in cells, just as proteins do. These RNAs therefore act like enzymes, and are referred to as 'ribozymes."

The ability to replicate and accelerate chemical transformations motivated the formulation of the "RNA world' hypothesis. This idea postulates that, during early molecular evolution, RNA molecules served both as stores of information like DNA, and as chemical catalysts. The latter role is performed by proteins in today's organisms, where RNAs are synthesized by enzymes called RNA polymerases.

The probability that there are many pathways for cell polymerization.

Epistemic structural realism

The philosophical concept of (scientific) structuralism is related to that of epistemic structural realism (ESR).[3] ESR, a position originally and independently held by Henri Poincaré (1902),[8][9] Bertrand Russell (1927),[10] and Rudolf Carnap (1928),[11] was resurrected by John Worrall (1989), who proposes that there is retention of structure across theory change.

Worrall, for example, argued that Fresnel's equations imply that light has a structure and that Maxwell's equations, which replaced Fresnel's, do also; both characterize light as vibrations. Fresnel postulated that the vibrations were in a mechanical medium called "ether"; Maxwell postulated that the vibrations were of electric and magnetic fields. The structure in both cases is the vibrations and it was retained when Maxwell's theories replaced Fresnel's.[12]

Because structure is retained, structural realism both (a) avoids pessimistic meta-induction[β] and (b) does not make the success of science seem miraculous, i.e., it puts forward a no-miracles argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(philosophy_of_science)

Synergetics[52] Hermann Haken has pointed out that different physical systems can be treated in a similar way. He gives as examples of self-organization several types of lasers, instabilities in fluid dynamics, including convection, and chemical and biochemical oscillations. In his preface he mentions the origin of life, but only in general terms:

In recent years it has become more and more evident that there exists numerous examples in physical and chemical systems where well organized spatial, temporal, or spatio-temporal structures arise out of chaotic states. Furthermore, as in living organisms, the functioning of these systems can be maintained only by a flux of energy (and matter) through them. In contrast to man-made machines, which are devised to exhibit special structures and functionings, these structures develop spontaneously—they are selforganizing. ...[53]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

[Write4U]

Don't let this fool you:
https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~turk/bio_sim/articles/metabolic_pathways.png

When the earth has performed "2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion" chemical experiments during it's 4.5 b lifetime, the above polymerization schema is not necessarily prohibitive.
(that number = 2,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000 chemical reactions)

Different polymerization sequences are not just horizontal, but also exponentially vertical in practice. On Earth alone, trillions of chemical interactions are being performed every second of every day. Each just a little different from another. And many are built on or added to previously formed stable polymers. That is the nature of evolutionary processes on a global scale, let alone on a universal scale. Numbers and probabilities become unimportant.

Moreover the use of the term "unguided" is incorrect. Mathematics guide all evolutionary chemical processes that contain "relational values".

 

[Write4U]

Richard Lenski
This article is about Richard Lenski, the evolutionary biologist. For the Lutheran commentator (his ancestor), see Richard C. H. Lenski.

Scientific career
Fields Evolutionary biology Experimental evolution
Institutions Michigan State University
University of California, Irvine
Websitemyxo.css.msu.edu telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com

Richard Eimer Lenski (born August 13, 1956) is an American evolutionary biologist,[3] a MacArthur "genius" fellow, a Hannah Distinguished Professor of Microbial Ecology at Michigan State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Lenski is best known for his still ongoing 32-year-old long-term E. coli evolution experiment, which has been instrumental in understanding the core processes of evolution, including mutation rates[4], clonal interference,[5] antibiotic resistance,[6] the evolution of novel traits,[7] and speciation.[8] He is also well known for his pioneering work in studying evolution digitally using self-replicating organisms called Avida.

Experimental approach

The long-term evolution experiment was designed as an open-ended means of empirical examination of central features of

evolution. The experiment was begun with three principal goals:
1. examine the dynamics of evolution, including the rate of evolutionary change.
2. examine the repeatability of evolution.
3. to better understand the relationship between change on the phenotypic and genotypic levels.[11]

As the experiment has continued, its scope has grown as new questions in evolutionary biology have arisen that it can be used to address, as the populations' evolution has presented new phenomena to study, and as technology and methodological techniques have advanced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lenski

 

[paddoboy]

Don't kid yourself. No closet. No agenda. Just being free to challenge an unworkable belief system you trust with a religious fervor.

Not kidding myself at all old friend. Your old front you used fairly well....[you know, the "I am a scientist" one, and approach everything scientifically] until I exposed it for what it was [or wasn't] worth.
Whatever form your own mythical Spaghetti monster may take, ask him next time to accompany you into a "children's ward" at your local Hospital...then tell me that your silly myth exists.

The facts are that both your heroes, Tour and Behe, have been roundly criticised for their beliefs, stated as fact, and the misunderstandings within.
Tour, your original hero, should stick to his "trade" and stop trying to tell the experts where they are supposedly wrong.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Dr-James-Tour-say-that-science-refutes-evolution-1
Patrick Foley: Population biologist with a PhD in Evolutionary Genetics
Updated June 12, 2018

"Dr. Tour is a very well-trained and experienced chemist. He has doubts about evolution (and also about intelligent design!), but none about the Bible. He is not a geneticist, an ecologist, a biologist, or most importantly, an evolutionary biologist. These are the people who study evolution carefully and may have some idea what they are talking about when they are talking about evolution.

If I started making pronouncements about the chemistry of nanotechnology, I hope everyone would be appropriately skeptical.
Tour’s basic scientific criticism of evolutionary biology is that Tour does not understand the mechanisms, at the chemical level, by which big macroevolutionary changes have occurred, say in body plan. Of course evolutionary biologists have spent a lot of thought on such things, and I would encourage anyone who share’s Tour’s doubts to actually read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject.

One important point here is that body plan evolution can be approached from several levels, including the chemical. Tracing the fossil record is one. Comparative anatomy is another. Developmental genetics is another. And all of these approaches undergo continuing research. Evolutionary scientists are committed to solving these problems by research. Is Tour? In the passage below, he explicitly states that he has a theological commitment that prevents him from an open-minded investigation into evolution.

From Tour’s website:

“Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.”

“As a scientist and a Christian (Messianic Jew), I am unsure of many things in both science and faith. But my many questions are not fundamental to my salvation. Salvation is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah), my confession in him as Savior and my belief in his physical resurrection from the dead. Indeed, the physical resurrection is an atypical example where God works beyond the normally observed physical laws of science in order to accomplish his purposes. Therefore it’s called a miracle. And thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So sayeth this exponent of the literal nonsense of the bible!

 

[Q-reeus]

Not kidding myself at all old friend. Your old front you used fairly well....[you know, the "I am a scientist" one, and approach everything scientifically] until I exposed it for what it was [or wasn't] worth.
Whatever form your own mythical Spaghetti monster may take, ask him next time to accompany you into a "children's ward" at your local Hospital...then tell me that your silly myth exists.

The facts are that both your heroes, Tour and Behe, have been roundly criticised for their beliefs, stated as fact, and the misunderstandings within.
Tour, your original hero, should stick to his "trade" and stop trying to tell the experts where they are supposedly wrong.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Dr-James-Tour-say-that-science-refutes-evolution-1
Patrick Foley: Population biologist with a PhD in Evolutionary Genetics
Updated June 12, 2018

"Dr. Tour is a very well-trained and experienced chemist. He has doubts about evolution (and also about intelligent design!), but none about the Bible. He is not a geneticist, an ecologist, a biologist, or most importantly, an evolutionary biologist. These are the people who study evolution carefully and may have some idea what they are talking about when they are talking about evolution.

If I started making pronouncements about the chemistry of nanotechnology, I hope everyone would be appropriately skeptical.
Tour’s basic scientific criticism of evolutionary biology is that Tour does not understand the mechanisms, at the chemical level, by which big macroevolutionary changes have occurred, say in body plan. Of course evolutionary biologists have spent a lot of thought on such things, and I would encourage anyone who share’s Tour’s doubts to actually read what evolutionary biologists have written on the subject.

One important point here is that body plan evolution can be approached from several levels, including the chemical. Tracing the fossil record is one. Comparative anatomy is another. Developmental genetics is another. And all of these approaches undergo continuing research. Evolutionary scientists are committed to solving these problems by research. Is Tour? In the passage below, he explicitly states that he has a theological commitment that prevents him from an open-minded investigation into evolution.

From Tour’s website:

“Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.”

“As a scientist and a Christian (Messianic Jew), I am unsure of many things in both science and faith. But my many questions are not fundamental to my salvation. Salvation is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah), my confession in him as Savior and my belief in his physical resurrection from the dead. Indeed, the physical resurrection is an atypical example where God works beyond the normally observed physical laws of science in order to accomplish his purposes. Therefore it’s called a miracle. And thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So sayeth this exponent of the literal nonsense of the bible!

Feel free to keep endlessly recycling such shitty underhanded arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny. That list again I posted way back:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

It sometimes happens proponents of a new theory bare the ugly truths about existing and unworkable ones:
https://talk.origins.narkive.com/fK...rewrites-the-story-of-how-life-on-earth-began

Too bad their own new hopeful is also shot to pieces. Go on believing what you are wedded to. I'll go on believing what imo makes real sense.

 

[Michael 345]

As a scientist and a Christian (Messianic Jew), I am unsure of many things in both science and faith.

And a bit of the follow up from the above he seems to be in two minds AND unsure

but it doesn't matter because his Salvation is blah blah blah - but here is a kicker - thanks be to God for his indescribable gift - Seems so sure he is going to get this gift he is giving thanks in advance

Not sure, myself, if there is a mental condition which describes his thought processes

If there is such a condition I'm betting it uses 2 full alphabets to form its name

 

[paddoboy]

Feel free to keep endlessly recycling such shitty underhanded arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny. That list again I posted way back:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

It sometimes happens proponents of a new theory bare the ugly truths about existing and unworkable ones:
https://talk.origins.narkive.com/fK...rewrites-the-story-of-how-life-on-earth-began

You really fail to recognise your own hypocrisy, as I said earlier...same situation applies to many God botherers.

Too bad their own new hopeful is also shot to pieces. Go on believing what you are wedded to. I'll go on believing what imo makes real sense.

Makes sense??You mean some all powerful, omnipotent spaghetti monster from the fifth dimension?
I'll stick to science thanks q-reeus.
Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory for how life arose...life from non life via chemistry.

 

[iceaura]

For all your talking down, nothing of substance is offered back.

Is that the reason you never discuss the contents of my posts, and keep changing the subject?
You keep posting error and ignorance, and when corrected you attack other people's tone of voice. Seems a waste Why not discuss issues instead - learn something. You have an interest in Darwinian evolutionary theory - great, time to learn about it.

What exactly then is the 'correct evolutionary synthesis' re pathway to first cell? As a know-it-all you surely know

Evolutionary synthesis? More new and odd language from the cornered creationist.

As I and others have stated and asserted and repeated many times: nobody knows the actual sequence of events - not where, not when, not what, and most definitely not who.

That's one of the items of substance you have been provided. There are hundreds of possible pathways and timings just among the factors we can see, and we will probably be hundreds of years narrowing the field - if we even can, much more than we have. It happened three billion years ago, after all - hard to get solid info, and the mature field is less than 75 years old (if we date the possibilities of research to the discovery of the role of DNA).
Meanwhile, that's a demand you make of others which you don't make of your own claims; are you sure your own presumptions can meet it? What's the supposedly correct ID established pathway to the "first cell" and similar ID concepts? (in Darwinian theory there is no "first cell" - it would be a matter of definition, and various first cellular examples would presumably serve various analytical needs).

 

[Q-reeus]

Is that the reason you never discuss the contents of my posts, and keep changing the subject?
You keep posting error and ignorance, and when corrected you attack other people's tone of voice. Seems a waste Why not discuss issues instead - learn something. You have an interest in Darwinian evolutionary theory - great, time to learn about it.
Evolutionary synthesis? More new and odd language from the cornered creationist.

As I and others have stated and asserted and repeated many times: nobody knows the actual sequence of events - not where, not when, not what, and most definitely not who.

That's one of the items of substance you have been provided. There are hundreds of possible pathways and timings just among the factors we can see, and we will probably be hundreds of years narrowing the field - if we even can, much more than we have. It happened three billion years ago, after all - hard to get solid info, and the mature field is less than 75 years old (if we date the possibilities of research to the discovery of the role of DNA).
Meanwhile, that's a demand you make of others which you don't make of your own claims; are you sure your own presumptions can meet it? What's the supposedly correct ID established pathway to the "first cell" and similar ID concepts? (in Darwinian theory there is no "first cell" - it would be a matter of definition, and various first cellular examples would presumably serve various analytical needs).

You think way too much of yourself. I don't waste too much time replying in detail as you have a reputation from other subforums of asserting BS as 'fact' and using the 'you are stupid' tactic whenever challenged as to your 'facts'. Like some others here you are too opinionated and vain to ever concede. The cycle never ends if one allows it. Not me. Life's too short to waste much time on your argument-as-hobby type.
I have yet to come across any remotely workable hypothesis for unguided addition of a proto-cell wall other than as an accidental engulfing event by a somehow extant lipid enclosure. My earlier criticisms stand - it would lead to nowhere useful for reasons already given. You should read the second article linked to in #452. Things are getting quietly desperate in knowledgeable OOL circles. What's that you say; "you are stupid!" Sigh.

 

[Write4U]

Interesting debate this.

Q-reeus asks for the "correct" sequence of "abiogenesis" or even later "evolution", else the theory is too vague for a scientific defense or even "intelligent" discussion.

But Q-reeus himself posits an "irreducible complexity" (i.e. a miracle) as proof of a defensible theory, but does not feel the need to provide the correct miraculous sequence used by the Intelligent Designer, without necessity for explaining an a priori state of non-irreducible complexity prior to the creation of "irreducible complexity". How convenient is that?

"You have to show the exact path for your theory, but I don't even have to show any path for my theory. I have a Book named "Of Pandas and People" that teaches children about the magic of miracles and the Intelligent Designer which performs those miracles."

That's like a pre-school "show and tell" where YOU must "show", but I don't need to show but only "tell".

Are you "kidding me" ?

 

[paddoboy]

You think way too much of yourself. I don't waste too much time replying in detail as you have a reputation from other subforums of asserting BS as 'fact' and using the 'you are stupid' tactic whenever challenged as to your 'facts'.

Well I'm still operational elsewhere, where there are even more reputable experts, so let's discuss your problems, denials and mythical beliefs there. Oh wait, I'm sorry, I forgot!

 

[paddoboy]

In essence, the over-riding issue with IDers and other assorted God botherers, is actually fear. Fear that an insensitive, indifferent, non-sympathetic universe, exists, and evolves and dies, just as life does...exist, evolve [reproduce] and dies. The finality of that death scares people. We fight to survive, but death is inevitable. Why does that finality scare people? It's simply the end of existence, kaput, that's it...no more conciousness, no mythical spiritual soul, just nothing.

 

[Q-reeus]

In essence, the over-riding issue with IDers and other assorted God botherers, is actually fear. Fear that an insensitive, indifferent, non-sympathetic universe, exists, and evolves and dies, just as life does...exist, evolve [reproduce] and dies. The finality of that death scares people. We fight to survive, but death is inevitable. Why does that finality scare people? It's simply the end of existence, kaput, that's it...no more conciousness, no mythical spiritual soul, just nothing.

Hmm....therefore your beloved missus clings to her flying spaghetti monster god out of a terrible fear of death. But that's ok provided she never ever shares her comforting faith with strangers. Goes to the dark side and becomes a god-botherer.
You assume too much in accusing all ID advocates as being motivated primarily by fear of death, rather than a studied logical conviction that unguided abiogenesis is simply an unworkable fantasy.