prove me wrong on evolution

[Fade]

Opethian never said that.

Anyhoo, you keep flogging that strawman, it must be quite fulfilling.

 

[Opethian]

Simpson, S., Life’s first scalding steps, Science News 155(2):24–26, 1999; p. 26.
'… no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation. That’s one of the strongest reasons that Wächtershäuser, Morowitz, and other hydrothermal vent theorists want to move the kitchen [that cooked life] to the ocean floor.’

That doesn't say anything about how abiogenesis is impossible. It only says that for the amino acids to be able to form proteins there had to be some kind of catalyst, a place where they can accumulate and bond, and I don't think it will take long to google up an explanation for that.

 

[Fade]

Not to mention that it's off topic

 

[Endless]

That doesn't say anything about how abiogenesis is impossible.

What it does say is that it recognises that under the conditions at the surface (which Miller tried to replicate) abiogenesis is impossible - hence the reason why they propose it occurred underwater in the depths of the ocean.

Anyhoo, you keep flogging that strawman, it must be quite fulfilling.

There is no strawman Fade, but the topic has proceeded past your capabilities to debate. Opethian - why has science failed in the manner i was talking about? If they have not failed then provide the experimental proof. You will find none - even talkorigins could only rely on the nylon example - which is actually irrelevant as i showed. Where is another example? ....There are none - why did science fail?

 

[painted wolf]

actually there are several theories about where the first protiens and amino acids formed. Under water, in ice, in gysers, bubbling mud and so on...
several groups are working on experaments to test some of these other theries... time will tell how they do.
The earth was a big place with lots of extreme environments... perfect places for archea and other early life forms to form.

wa:do

 

[kassi]

If evolution is basicly survival of the fittest, then why do we die? or at least not live alot longer than we do?

 

[Endless]

Fittest refers to reproduction - ie. better able to reproduce.
Dying is perhaps due to reproduction only happening within the first 30-40 years of the human life, therefore anything happening after that doesn't matter because genes aren't passed on at that stage. Therefore you can't really select genes for a longer life if you reproduce at 30-40 years - there's no real advantage in a longer life because of this.

 

[Ciscokid]

creationists seems to ignore that Creationism isn't science.

A scientific theory must predict events and must leave room for failure. for example Newton's laws predicted movement accurately, they could be tested over and over again in a laboratory but there was space for failure there, in the laboratory. If they failed to predict something precisely then an exception was recorded and new scientific theories emerged which would be put to test in the laboratory to see if not only this exceptions where predicted but also all the phenomena predicted by Newton. Particularly one theory did this and we know it as Quantum Mechanics.

Returning to evolution, evolution predicts future events, evolution can be tested in labs and most importantly evolution leaves space for failure. Creationism doesn't predict anything, creationism can't be tested in lab and creationism doesn't leave space for failure since all can be "his will". As with fossil records which supposedly put our fate at test, which is ridiculous, if we take this as a scientific true then everything can be a test and nothing would be real, welcome to the dark ages.

Creationism is theology and it should stay there, not only for the theory itself but for the approach.

Your statements don't harm Creationism very much at all. You are only showing that science is limited to the 'natural world'....that fact does not tarnish Creationism. I would agree that Creationism isn't scientific....but I would also stress that Science is limited.

 

[Opethian]

How is science limited?

 

[Fade]

There is no strawman Fade, but the topic has proceeded past your capabilities to debate. Opethian - why has science failed in the manner i was talking about? If they have not failed then provide the experimental proof. You will find none - even talkorigins could only rely on the nylon example - which is actually irrelevant as i showed. Where is another example? ....There are none - why did science fail?

Yes there is. You made it why ignore it? Once again...

Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process.

Please tell me why you continue to ignore the above statement? You keep asking for experimental evidence/proof. That is fine, the problem is there isn't much direct evidence/proof of evolutionary processes because they happen over periods of time that make experimentation/observatio difficult to say the least. Thus you are merrily whacking a strawman.

 

[Opethian]

There is no strawman Fade, but the topic has proceeded past your capabilities to debate. Opethian - why has science failed in the manner i was talking about? If they have not failed then provide the experimental proof. You will find none - even talkorigins could only rely on the nylon example - which is actually irrelevant as i showed. Where is another example? ....There are none - why did science fail?

Science didn't fail. Science failed to deliver on certain criteria that you demand from them. Yet, these are not the criteria that they need to deliver on to defend evolution, since it is extremely difficult to create the kind of 'novel information' that you defined, in the small periods of time that have been available since we have had decent genetic altering technology. The problem is time, as I have already posted and Fade too. You ask scientists to create altered genes that do something completely differently from what they did before, and to accomplish something like that, we would have to have quite a large number of mutations accumulate.
But that is why we can look at evidence from the past. And the evidence we get from the past, when all combined, makes evolution a fact imo. It's the way that all this evidence fits together and correllates, it's a beautiful thing.

A link that I found about a point mutation in a human protein that you might find interesting: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html

Another link about artificial natural selection and mutations:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

[Endless]

No Opethian - science did fail to cause the occurance of a gene with a completely new function via mutation in the lab. Hence they failed to bridge the gap i was talking about. Now the fact that science failed to deliver on my criteria is never what i asked you Opethian, what i did ask was why science failed to cause the occurace of a gene with a completely new function via mutation in the lab? - ie. in replicating mutation in nature (hands off so to speak). Why did science fail to do this is my question to you.

Yet, these are not the criteria that they need to deliver on to defend evolution, since it is extremely difficult to create the kind of 'novel information' that you defined, in the small periods of time that have been available since we have had decent genetic altering technology.

The problem is not time - we have bacteria which can replicate every 20 minutes (E.coli) we can increase the natural mutation rate so that every individual bacteria will mutate in the 20 minutes. We can adjust and select the natural environment. Time has had nothing to do with it - we have had plenty of it.

You ask scientists to create altered genes that do something completely differently from what they did before, and to accomplish something like that, we would have to have quite a large number of mutations accumulate.

This is totally possible as demonstrated before under laboratory conditions - we can cause hundreds of thousands of mutations to occur.

But that is why we can look at evidence from the past. And the evidence we get from the past, when all combined, makes evolution a fact imo. It's the way that all this evidence fits together and correllates, it's a beautiful thing.

But that is not the question - we have never observed it happening either in the lab nor in nature. Therefore we must ask the question 'why not'? If we accept that all genetic variablity arose today from mutation natural selection and genetic drift etc. Then why can we not replicate it in the lab, and why do we not observe it happening now in bacteria and other fast replicating organisms?
All we do observe is mutation acting on the same function - impairing it or speeding it up - there are no new functions developing. Like in the 2 links you posted Opethian. The first is Apolipoprotein (Apo-IAM) which i quote:

Subsequent detailed research of the Apo-AIM mutation has demonstrated that it has improved biological function

Still the same function - just works better, where is the new function? Is does not support molecule to man evolution which require new functions being generated. The question still remains - why did science fail to demonstrate this and why have we no examples of this occuring in nature. The next logical conclusion is - if there is no genetic basis by which we can cause this to happen in the lab nor observe it to happen, can we logically assume that it did happen? Why has science failed to demonstrate this? Surely it cannot be that hard - or can it?

 

[Yerda]

No Opethian - science did fail to cause the occurance of a gene with a completely new function via mutation in the lab.

You still running with this?

Where do you think antibiotic resistances in bacteria arise from? Pesticide resistance in insects? There are absolutley bundles of recognised single nucleotide polymorphisms in humans. These are brought about by mutation and many of them alter gene expression.

Changes in genes lead to outcomes not previously seen. Not that it matters, since any given gene might do a completely different thing in a different locus or a different species.

 

[Endless]

You still running with this?

Where do you think antibiotic resistances in bacteria arise from? Pesticide resistance in insects? There are absolutley bundles of recognised single nucleotide polymorphisms in humans. These are brought about by mutation and many of them alter gene expression.

Changes in genes lead to outcomes not previously seen. Not that it matters, since any given gene might do a completely different thing in a different locus or a different species.

There are no examples of it in nature Jaiket - antibiotic resistance is not down to a gene with a new function - either bacteria obtain it from plasmids or it's a defect in a function which the antibiotic used to kill the bacteria - hence the gene product is no longer functioning or is impaired. There is no new function arising. It's exactly the same with pesticide resistance in insects.

 

[Opethian]

There are no examples of it in nature Jaiket - antibiotic resistance is not down to a gene with a new function - either bacteria obtain it from plasmids or it's a defect in a function which the antibiotic used to kill the bacteria - hence the gene product is no longer functioning or is impaired.

No, the gene product is changed. Stating it is either no longer functioning or is impaired is a lie.

 

[Endless]

No, the gene product is changed. Stating it is either no longer functioning or is impaired is a lie.

Don't just state an opinion - back it up Opethian, you know better than this.

It doesn't have a new function. You look at the examples of antibiotic resistance conferred by mutation - you will find the product is either not functioning or impaired in such a way as to prevent death. Although disadvantageous in the absence of antibiotic, the presence of antibiotic makes the impairment or non-function an advantage.

 

[Endless]

Don't get me wrong when i'm talking about a new function - enzymes are highly specific and you can get mutations which generalise the specificity of enzymes before any other mutations will wreck the enzymes. Though this is not the norm. So if you call generalised specificity to a whole lot of random substrates a new function, then what i wrote up above is incorrect in this case. Though generalised specifity is normally selected against due to highly specific enzymes needed to control biochemical pathways so that the organism in question can compete.

There is the example of the penecillin 'killer enzymes' that some bacteria have conferring them antibiotic resistance.

 

[Yerda]

There are no examples of it in nature Jaiket - antibiotic resistance....

Well, have Endless fun with your strawman, it's getting a little beaten around the edges but if it tickles your fancy....

 

[Fade]

I'm just waiting for the patronising attitude to make a return.
Something along the lines of 'I know more than you so trust me I'm right'.

 

[Endless]

No patronising comments this time. Still hiding behind 'the strawman' i see :biglaugh:
I asked a question - a question cannot be a strawman, but you cannot answer my question, or you would have done so.