Denial of Evolution VII (2015)
- Thread starter davewhite04
- Start date
Yes, they can be found, it was brought up in one of the previous incarnations of leopold's ravings. I've just been too lazy to hunt them down. (If the links even still work)
I feel somewhat responsible, IIRC, I am the one that brought the source and someone else found the letters - it was kind of a replay of this thread - leopold claimed he couldn't find the article, I found a working link, RAV or Aqueous or Origin or whomever then ferreted out a/some letters to the editor disputing the validity of Lewin's claim - and Science published the letters.
I will look...
leopold:
Have you suddenly changed your mind, now? Do you admit, then, that Ayala is a supporter of the theory of evolution, after all?
Ayala did not retract anything. I walked you through that, above.
This entire thread is about your claim that Ayala said that evolution doesn't occur.
Have you suddenly changed your mind, now? Do you admit, then, that Ayala is a supporter of the theory of evolution, after all?
I'm sorry, leopold, but having a baby tantrum won't help your case. I suggest you use your 3 days off to think carefully about your behaviour here. Then, when you come back I think an apology to all members of the forum would be appropriate, don't you?
leopold on the ban list again.Randwolf said:
Now there's a f**king surprise...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104952/quotes
Randwolf:
Thanks. I had a brief trawl through the previous threads I could find on this, but I didn't find anything about the letters. leopold has brought this topic up so often that there are bits and pieces scattered in many different places. I'd like the current thread to be a definitive end of this matter. leopold's continued raising of this non-issue is a waste of everybody's time, and we shouldn't have to repeat this charade every few months.
Oh, and don't feel responsible for leopold's antics. He has been like this for years now.
Thanks. I had a brief trawl through the previous threads I could find on this, but I didn't find anything about the letters. leopold has brought this topic up so often that there are bits and pieces scattered in many different places. I'd like the current thread to be a definitive end of this matter. leopold's continued raising of this non-issue is a waste of everybody's time, and we shouldn't have to repeat this charade every few months.
Oh, and don't feel responsible for leopold's antics. He has been like this for years now.
Bells
Staff member
And as I noted in previous posts, you read the quote, if not the article, on a creationist website and then followed the link and used that as the "source". But you do not have access to Science. Had you read the article in Science Magazine, you would have clearly seen that the article supported evolution. But you do not seem to know this because you keep focusing on that one quote, which is often referred to on creationist websites and was often quote mined and misrepresented, which is why you decided to follow in the same footsteps and misrepresent it here.
That has been the crux of your argument for years.
Are you now admitting that you are wrong?
Instead of addressing the issue, you resort to this level of abuse. Same old dodging tactics you have been applying for years. Nothing new or original.
Just childish and pathetic.
I've mentioned them a few times, then there's the article by Schopf which is not only peer reviewed and published, but published in a relevant journal in a relevant field by a distinguished member of that field.
Has Leopold been banned for 3 days or 30 days?
I can't see it being long before he is permabanned if he keeps up the tantrums,
but which is it?
I can't see it being long before he is permabanned if he keeps up the tantrums,
but which is it?
Dywyddyr said: ↑
You seem to be getting confused between proof, theory and fact.
Evolution is a fact - it happens.
The "theory" part is about exactly how it happens - the precise details.
I agree with the concept of change that we call evolution. However, I do not agree with the current theory that is used to explain evolution. The change called evolution and theory used to explain the change, are two different things. These are often lumped as one thing, so any challenge to the current theory is treated as denial of evolution, even though these are two separate things.
Let me explain you why the current theory is wrong, by default. Water is the main component of life with all the organics of life, lifeless if the water is removed. If we add water back, life appears. One cannot substitute any other solvent for water, because life evolved in water, from day one, and therefore everything is tuned to water, in subtle ways that cannot be duplicated with any other solvent. Water is singularly important to everything.
Any theory they does not explain the impact of water, in every analysis, is only a half baked approximation. The current theory is based on an unintelligent theoretical design that has practical use but needs casino math to compensate for poor theatrical design.
You seem to be getting confused between proof, theory and fact.
Evolution is a fact - it happens.
The "theory" part is about exactly how it happens - the precise details.
I agree with the concept of change that we call evolution. However, I do not agree with the current theory that is used to explain evolution. The change called evolution and theory used to explain the change, are two different things. These are often lumped as one thing, so any challenge to the current theory is treated as denial of evolution, even though these are two separate things.
Let me explain you why the current theory is wrong, by default. Water is the main component of life with all the organics of life, lifeless if the water is removed. If we add water back, life appears. One cannot substitute any other solvent for water, because life evolved in water, from day one, and therefore everything is tuned to water, in subtle ways that cannot be duplicated with any other solvent. Water is singularly important to everything.
Any theory they does not explain the impact of water, in every analysis, is only a half baked approximation. The current theory is based on an unintelligent theoretical design that has practical use but needs casino math to compensate for poor theatrical design.
Non-sense. The ToE is based on observations. Does not need to mention water or even know about gene mutations etc. The ToE existed for Darwin et. al. long before they were known.
Fortunately I still have my badge as "Sheriff of Nonsense" and welcome back the "Old Wellwisher" to my jail.
Darwin's theory of natural selection makes sense. This theory was logical and not based on randomness. For any given set of circumstances, a logic appeared in terms of natural selection. It was not about throwing dice. Dice can change the parameters but the new parameters define the logic.
Water is a key part of that selection process. Water has provided an environment, at the molecular level, within which molecules of life have become selected. The molecules that constitute life, have to be able to work in water or else they would not be selected. None of these molecules work in other solvents, because these solvents did not the same role in the selection process for life on earth. This is not because of luck of the cards, but because water is uniquely qualified for life. It is the reason life uses hydrogen bonding; selection for water.
Animals will be selected, based on whether they live in the desert or in the rain forest. If molecules live and work in water, this is the environmental at the nanoscale for their evolution and selection. The current theory ignores the fundamentals of Darwin by ignoring the impact of the aqueous nano environment on molecular evolution.
Water is a key part of that selection process. Water has provided an environment, at the molecular level, within which molecules of life have become selected. The molecules that constitute life, have to be able to work in water or else they would not be selected. None of these molecules work in other solvents, because these solvents did not the same role in the selection process for life on earth. This is not because of luck of the cards, but because water is uniquely qualified for life. It is the reason life uses hydrogen bonding; selection for water.
Animals will be selected, based on whether they live in the desert or in the rain forest. If molecules live and work in water, this is the environmental at the nanoscale for their evolution and selection. The current theory ignores the fundamentals of Darwin by ignoring the impact of the aqueous nano environment on molecular evolution.
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
Could you give a specific example of how the current theory is lacking? I would think that water being part of the equation is a given.
This is just some weird compulsion that wellwisher has and reprints about 2 or 3 times a week. Just ignore it.
paddoboy,
correct.
and here is the recruitment poster:
oh my, the above leaves no doubt i was trying to "recruit" you !
I was referring to the PM you sent me re Evolution, and a mention of God, and then denying it, until I obtained permission off Trippy to publish those PMs on the forum.
My response by the way was to politely tell you to bugger off. :shrug:
Water is given lip service, since it is the majority component of life and it can't be fully ignored. But evolution does not discuss water in proportion to its role within life. If is did, water would be featured in all discussions. The modern discussion fixates on solid state fossils, but not liquid state water. Liquid state physics is different from solid state physics and has additional properties one cannot infer from dehydrated fossils.
The reason the removal of water from life, will result in all life processes stopping, is because water brings things to the table that the organics do not contain on their own. Life evolved in the nan0-environment water, such that all the organics are tuned to the properties of water. The current theory bases itself on solid state fossils that are dehydrated and lifeless, even though life needs water and liquid state properties to be alive. The current theory may do a good job discussing the evolution of inanimate things since that is the basis of the data.
Theoretical design:
If you look at water or H2O, it a polar molecule with the hydrogen atoms being slightly positive and the oxygen atom having a slight negative charge. This dipole allows water to form secondary bonding called hydrogen bonding. Each water molecule can form up to four hydrogen bonds. Water is a loose analogy of carbon, in that each can form four bonds. Carbon forms four strong covalent bonds, while water forms four semi-strong hydrogen bonds. The carbon gives life a rigid, tough and enduring foundation; fossils, while water works on the surface of this tough base, making it more pliable and reversible in terms of its secondary and tertiary orientations. You can't replace water with other solvents because no other solvents that can fully mimic the four bonds of carbon in this loose secondary way.
The hydrogen bond is also unique, in that it is a hybrid bond that is somewhere between ionic (charge attraction) and covalent (shared electrons). This hybrid bond within water is why we get the pH effect, where water can self dissociate, breaking strong covalent bonds. Water can hydrogen bond to other water molecule in a simple ionic fashion. Due to the hybrid nature of the hydrogen bond, the ionic bond can then convert to the covalent state. This allows the once hydrogen bonded hydrogen to covalently attach to the oxygen. The hydrogen bonding hybrid helps to lower the activation energy of chemical reactions.
The hybrid nature of hydrogen bonding brings other things to the table that are very useful to life. The ionic aspect of the hybrid will maximized its bond strength by getting as close as possible. This allows opposite charges to get as close as possible. The covalent aspect of the hybrid is different in that covalent bonding overlaps bonding orbitals which need to separate so there is proper overlap for sharing. The net effect is the ionic aspect of the hybrid causes water to contract while the covalent aspect of the hybrid causes water to expand. The difference in energy between these two is small, with each semi-stable, allowing the hydrogen bonding to twitch between the two states. Hydrogen bonding hybrid is a natural binary switch for liquid memory; mimic the organics and send information.
The hydrogen bonding binary brings other things to the table besides the capacity for liquid memory. The ionic by being less expanded and the covalent by being more expanded allows water to exert or release pressure in the cellular continuum by simply switching between the binary states. If you need room for a protein to move, this benefits by the water in the contracted state. If you need the enzyme to do nothing, the expanded state of water can be used to put a squeeze. The memory has a physical effect.
The covalent state is slighter lower energy and is more ordered due to orbital overlapping implicit of covalent bonding. This implies the covalent state of the hybrid has lower enthalpy and lower entropy. The ionic state is the opposite and has more disorder therefore more entropy and higher enthalpy. Besides exerting or releasing pressure due to volume changes, the water also offers difference in the local enthalpy and entropy to assist or inhibit reaction. If we combine this to information potential within the binary of hydrogen bonding, that information is distributed as volume, pressure, enthalpy and entropy states. This allows the water to reflect the state of the organics and assist in equilibrium change of state.
Fossils are not the basis of evolution, they sure as hell support it though. Solid state fossils??
Holy crap are you a hoot. You think evolution is a theory of the change of inanimate things. Did you have a few glasses of bourbon for breakfast???
Maybe you should change your name to Bobby Boucher.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
BINGO! Water, entropy and hydrogen bonding, all in a single post. All we need is liberals.
Not quite as astounding as the coelacanth (image below), that was supposed to be extinct for 65 million years, and known only by the fossil records. It head-lined into human consciousness with its discovery alive in 1938. Nicknamed "Old Four Legs" and the "Living Fossil," Laitmeria chalumnae- the Coelacanth- quickly became the continuing obsessive focus of journalists, crypto biologists, scientists, eccentric explorers, aquariums, divers, film makers and billionaires. First was caught in the Indian ocean, but now a closely releated primitive fish (same species?) has been found deep in most of the world's warm, deep oceans waters.
One of these quasi-legged fish who waddled back to the ocean when trapped in a shallow pool by the receding tides (much greater back then when moon was closer to earth) may be your great, great ... great grand father. A fat strong tail, probably helped that a lot. I don't know, but guess that at least half your DNA is identical with his.
By edit: No my guess was wrong. The coelacanth branched off many braches earlier from man's evolutionary line, However does still share some very conserved, non-coding HOX groups of DNA with man.:
Amazing how well this "evolution tree" was known from comparative structural biology well before it was slightly changed by comparative DNA analysis.
Also note why the mouse is such a good model for testing new drugs - Mouse and humans only recently split, but of course other primates are best, but expensive, and now can't be exported from Indian et.al. for that purpose. I think there is (30 years ago there was) a breading colony of Rhesus monkeys in Florida.
Last edited by a moderator: