|
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 7, 2019 11:24:35 GMT
In a prebiotic environment smaller chains of RNA and smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over longer chains and molecules. The elaborate defenses are not yet in place. Any "improvement" in the small chains is readily lost. If you want to argue over my description of the source of genetic variation then you should have one different from mine, no? The source of genetic variation has been assumed to be a failure to copy. Genes have to be copied to be passed to other generations. The mechanism of duplication has requirements. An unhealthy animal might be missing certain required nutrients or have conditions not suitable to the duplication process. That is often described for lack of better terms as "random." The failure to copy an existing pattern might in unusual cases cause a pattern with various advantages the old pattern did not have. That is the basic foundation of evolutionary theory, which no one here is arguing. It is however irrelevant to the discussion of the origin of life. As explained here it has been observed in laboratories for decades that short RNA chains do not develop long ones because the shorter chains have the competitive advantage. The longer chains have no protective phospholipid bilayer or cell walls to prevent the onslaught. The short chains are more difficult to catch hold. 
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 7, 2019 11:40:20 GMT
The Big Bang suggests no such thing. Learn to think. The Big Bang was not the beginning of an expanding universe? Was it not a prime movement?  It could be those things, it could be many other things. You are leaping to conclusions ahead of any available science and ahead of what the big bang objectively is.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 7, 2019 11:41:50 GMT
As explained here it has been observed in laboratories for decades that short RNA chains do not develop long ones because the shorter chains have the competitive advantage. The longer chains have no protective phospholipid bilayer or cell walls to prevent the onslaught. The short chains are more difficult to catch hold. You couldn't articulate why this matters if your sad life depended on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 7, 2019 12:03:06 GMT
As explained here it has been observed in laboratories for decades that short RNA chains do not develop long ones because the shorter chains have the competitive advantage. The longer chains have no protective phospholipid bilayer or cell walls to prevent the onslaught. The short chains are more difficult to catch hold. You couldn't articulate why this matters if your sad life depended on it. Says the guy who never even attempts articulate anything. You are predictable though. Just as we can predict short RNA chains won't do anything we can predict you won't either.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 7, 2019 15:58:31 GMT
The Big Bang was not the beginning of an expanding universe? Was it not a prime movement? It could be those things, it could be many other things. You are leaping to conclusions ahead of any available science and ahead of what the big bang objectively is. Jeezus effing christ some of you atheists here make us all look bad. You're more close minded than any fundie Christian. I'm an atheist. I'm merely saying that the Big Bang suggests there was a beginning as posited by most religions. Stop being such an anal retentive defensive prick.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 7, 2019 15:59:49 GMT
You should read Herman Hesse's novel "Demian". It explores the idea of the god Abraxas, who is both good and evil. The Old Testament describes god as angry and jealous. But fundamentalists see him as good nonetheless. The OT was about a bunch of confused, fearful and ignorant people. They were all frustrated and angry at life's harsh suffering. Fundies are just harsh individuals themselves, so need to be steered clear of.
We are no smarter today than people 3,000 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 7, 2019 17:02:55 GMT
I'm merely saying that the Big Bang suggests there was a beginning as posited by most religions. Stop being such an anal retentive defensive prick. Except it actually doesn't. Sorry that I'm more concerned with accuracy than you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 7, 2019 20:24:39 GMT
The question then becomes whether evolution, with all its elements, can be said to reflect the existence of an all-good, caring God. listverse.com/2009/03/04/top-10-worst-things-in-nature/ listverse.com/2013/06/25/10-sadistic-killers-of-the-natural-world/ There are some higher mammals that flirt with emotions such as tenderness, particularly when it comes to babies of various species, and there have been some amazing examples of purported predators showing something akin to “mercy”, to infants of their traditional prey species; particularly when there is some aspect of maternal instinct involved. But for the most part, the way of the world is to kill to eat, without the hindrance of conscience, over and over. Is this cavalcade of cruelty-as-process really the design of a moral entity? Evil in the world mitigates the possibility of a caring loving god. Of course theists will always point to free will to explain a good god who permits evil. Evil is typically divided into two types: the moral evil (that which occurs through the supposed misuse of free will) and then natural evil (such as disease, earthquakes & etc.) It is the latter type which was inevitable when one recalls that Genesis tells us that God only made his creation, as He judged, "very good" (i.e. not perfect) and, moreover, in Isiah admits to creating natural evil (or 'great misfortune' as some editions would have it). I have had scriptural qualifiers and special pleaders tell me that Isiah refers to God owning up only to a 'temporary' creation of such evil. But this is hard to marry up against an unchanging god, and the passage itself which offers no such qualification. The question is also how one could tell the difference between cancer created by God and cancer which 'just happens' - even if the latter case is possible in a supposedly designed universe. Deists would say that God created everything and then retired to absentee-landlord status taking no further active interest in our lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 7, 2019 20:42:57 GMT
It could be those things, it could be many other things. You are leaping to conclusions ahead of any available science and ahead of what the big bang objectively is. Jeezus effing christ some of you atheists here make us all look bad. You're more close minded than any fundie Christian. I'm an atheist. I'm merely saying that the Big Bang suggests there was a beginning as posited by most religions. Stop being such an anal retentive defensive prick. Before you get any ruder you would be advised to mug up on Bouncing Cosmology.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 7, 2019 20:47:55 GMT
The OT was about a bunch of confused, fearful and ignorant people. They were all frustrated and angry at life's harsh suffering. Fundies are just harsh individuals themselves, so need to be steered clear of.
We are no smarter today than people 3,000 years ago. Actually the jury is out on this one. Average intelligence levels, as measured by standardized intelligence tests, have been rising since at least the early 20th century. A recent meta-analysis that included more than 4 million people in 31 countries found an average gain of about three IQ points per decade, or roughly 10 points per generation. Another recent study found a similar increase. The phenomenon is commonly called the “Flynn effect,” after James Robert Flynn, the New Zealand academic who documented it in a series of studies starting in the early 1980s. The rise in IQ has been found in both developed and developing countries, but it varies by degree across countries, over time, and according to the type of intelligence measured. The Flynn effect has been stronger for nonverbal tests than for verbal ones, for instance, and greater for adults than for children. But more recent research has shown that rises might be levelling off, or even that the effect is questionable. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25987509
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 7, 2019 23:55:12 GMT
I'm merely saying that the Big Bang suggests there was a beginning as posited by most religions. Stop being such an anal retentive defensive prick. Except it actually doesn't. Sorry that I'm more concerned with accuracy than you are. Read this, dumbass, and tell me how it's inaccurate. You make atheists look stupid. What about the verb "began" don't you understand?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 8, 2019 0:04:47 GMT
The OT was about a bunch of confused, fearful and ignorant people. They were all frustrated and angry at life's harsh suffering. Fundies are just harsh individuals themselves, so need to be steered clear of.
We are no smarter today than people 3,000 years ago. You truly believe that? Even with all the advancements in science, technology, academia as well as increase in literacy, college graduates and IQ scores? A previous poster already pointed out the Flynn Effect, so I'm not gonna bother repeating it. By nearly every metric I can't think of a way were not smarter than people from even just a few decades ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 8, 2019 0:14:37 GMT
We are no smarter today than people 3,000 years ago. You truly believe that? Even with all the advancements in science, technology, academia as well as increase in literacy, college graduates and IQ scores? A previous poster already pointed out the Flynn Effect, so I'm not gonna bother repeating it. By nearly every metric I can't think of a way were not smarter than people from even just a few decades ago. He might mean that biologically speaking we are not capable of being smarter, I cant see anyone being able to claim that we have not gotten more knowledgeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 8, 2019 0:48:24 GMT
We are no smarter today than people 3,000 years ago. You truly believe that? Even with all the advancements in science, technology, academia as well as increase in literacy, college graduates and IQ scores? A previous poster already pointed out the Flynn Effect, so I'm not gonna bother repeating it. By nearly every metric I can't think of a way were not smarter than people from even just a few decades ago. It would depend on how one defines smarter. We are more populated and we still tend to be as ignorant to the meaning and purpose of our being. Look at all the confusion and flux in society. It would depend if one is talking about academic intelligence and IQ, or natural, insightful, instinctual intelligence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 8, 2019 5:21:52 GMT
Karl Aksel said: [ full text here] < clips >
1) Yes, mutations are - for all intents and purposes - random ... they are random in the sense that they cannot be predicted. 2) If the [random] mutation was advantageous 1) That is just what I said, so why are you complaining? 2) I understand evolutionary theory, but this discussion in not about evolution. Changed your mind? You see, this is the post you replied to: "I wonder, are you aware that no-one credible actually says that evolution is a process achieved through a series of accidents?" Which prompted you to accuse him of being a Lamarckian. Which would only make sense if you thought Darwinian evolution was random. No it's not - it's about evolution. I read your OP. Sure, any improvement is readily lost even today. But any improvement has a much higher chance of being passed on than a disadvantage. At least in the animal kingdom - less so but in an environment before life, there is no threat from other life forms. And since the environment in which life first formed was bound to be pretty homogenous, there wouldn't have been that many threats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 8, 2019 10:19:50 GMT
1) That is just what I said, so why are you complaining? 2) I understand evolutionary theory, but this discussion in not about evolution. Changed your mind? You see, this is the post you replied to: "I wonder, are you aware that no-one credible actually says that evolution is a process achieved through a series of accidents?" Which prompted you to accuse him of being a Lamarckian. Which would only make sense if you thought Darwinian evolution was random. No it's not - it's about evolution. I read your OP. Sure, any improvement is readily lost even today. But any improvement has a much higher chance of being passed on than a disadvantage. At least in the animal kingdom - less so but in an environment before life, there is no threat from other life forms. And since the environment in which life first formed was bound to be pretty homogenous, there wouldn't have been that many threats. Although it is possible the "tornado-in-a-junkyard" argument was used against evolution, that is not how I'm using it. I'm using it as an argument against the assembly of life by any forces found in nature. I am not arguing against evolution of species. Those are two different things as I carefully explained. Although you seem to be dodging what you believe the source of genetic variation is, the word "random" is still the most service in briefly describing it. In this context it means "unplanned," or as you aptly put it, "unpredictable." Despite your protests it is an essential element of evolutionary theory. "Natural selection" might appear the more likely to achieve results but both natural selection and some source of genetic variation (apparently random) are essential. Perhaps ironically it is that same "natural selection" at a prebiotic level that ensures advances are not made toward living things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 8, 2019 10:49:01 GMT
Changed your mind? You see, this is the post you replied to: "I wonder, are you aware that no-one credible actually says that evolution is a process achieved through a series of accidents?" Which prompted you to accuse him of being a Lamarckian. Which would only make sense if you thought Darwinian evolution was random. No it's not - it's about evolution. I read your OP. Sure, any improvement is readily lost even today. But any improvement has a much higher chance of being passed on than a disadvantage. At least in the animal kingdom - less so but in an environment before life, there is no threat from other life forms. And since the environment in which life first formed was bound to be pretty homogenous, there wouldn't have been that many threats. Although it is possible the "tornado-in-a-junkyard" argument was used against evolution, that is not how I'm using it. I'm using it as an argument against the assembly of life by any forces found in nature. I am not arguing against evolution of species. Those are two different things as I carefully explained. Maybe so, but you addressed a post talking about evolution. I, in turn, addressed your reply. So not abiogenesis, but evolution. Even if you insist you were talking about abiogenesis: Why did you accuse him of being a Lamarckian? Lamarckian evolution does not postulate anything as to the origins of life. Dodging? I practically spoonfed it to you! That's what I said. I said that, too. What do you mean, "more likely"? More likely than what? Mutations alone? Kind of like saying the wheels on your car can bring you to your destination more quickly than the intersections can. Mutations alone is not evolution. Evolution is the cause and effect that follows as a matter of nature. Evolution is not random, no matter how random the mutations are. Just like medical treatment is not random, but tailored to individual cases - which are random. There are no selection pressures prior to self-replicating life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 8, 2019 11:12:04 GMT
Although it is possible the "tornado-in-a-junkyard" argument was used against evolution, that is not how I'm using it. I'm using it as an argument against the assembly of life by any forces found in nature. I am not arguing against evolution of species. Those are two different things as I carefully explained. Maybe so, but you addressed a post talking about evolution. I, in turn, addressed your reply. So not abiogenesis, but evolution. Even if you insist you were talking about abiogenesis: Why did you accuse him of being a Lamarckian? Lamarckian evolution does not postulate anything as to the origins of life. Dodging? I practically spoonfed it to you! That's what I said. I said that, too. What do you mean, "more likely"? More likely than what? Mutations alone? Kind of like saying the wheels on your car can bring you to your destination more quickly than the intersections can. Mutations alone is not evolution. Evolution is the cause and effect that follows as a matter of nature. Evolution is not random, no matter how random the mutations are. Just like medical treatment is not random, but tailored to individual cases - which are random. There are no selection pressures prior to self-replicating life. The point is and should be the first life, not origin of the species. There is no reason to discuss evolution anywhere including in anything I said. It has been generally accepted as a plausible theory. What the political world does is deliberately cloud the issue of the origin of life with irrelevant discussions of evolution because they know they can "win" evolution and suspect they will lose attributing the origin of life to forces found in nature. Those are two different arguments and even your public schools told you so. The political world is inept at persuasion except where force of law can be used. That's why they refuse to acknowledge the issue is not evolution. Your claim that there are "no selections pressures" prior to self-replicating life shows what a superficial understanding you have of it all. And you are continuing to dodge the issue with your obfuscation. Smaller molecules have an advantage over larger ones. It matters not that they have no awareness of it. It matters not that the larger molecules are not aware of being ripped apart. It means there will be no progress toward life.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 8, 2019 11:17:29 GMT
Except it actually doesn't. Sorry that I'm more concerned with accuracy than you are. Read this, dumbass, and tell me how it's inaccurate. You make atheists look stupid. What about the verb "began" don't you understand? You went with Wikipedia, the "I know nothing but want a simple primer on a subject I don't understand" source. And you went with the one interpretation of the big bang which supported your claims, completely ignoring the fact that there are other interpretations, which I calmly explained to you in an earlier post. At least we got you to stop bringing up bullshit about a "prime mover", so that's progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 8, 2019 11:46:58 GMT
Read this, dumbass, and tell me how it's inaccurate. You make atheists look stupid. What about the verb "began" don't you understand? You went with Wikipedia, the "I know nothing but want a simple primer on a subject I don't understand" source. And you went with the one interpretation of the big bang which supported your claims, completely ignoring the fact that there are other interpretations, which I calmly explained to you in an earlier post. At least we got you to stop bringing up bullshit about a "prime mover", so that's progress. I suspect the first meaning of the "big bang" when the term was originally coined was "the" beginning. That there are "other interpretations" shows that the terminology is worthless. Most scientific speculation about the age of the Earth or how various things originated is also worthless. It's just mentally retarded people whining because religious discussions are over their ability to read. They're trying to "disprove" what religious people never took as hard fact anyway.
|
|
