What does the fossil record say?

[painted wolf]

Because you are still using modern cells as models for what those first cells would have been like.

There is a lot of very interesting work going on to see just how little a cell requires to function... for example the smallest genome is amazingly tiny... only 160,000 base pairs and codes for only 182 proteins. Found in the bacteria Carsonella ruddi.

By comparison the largest viral genome is mimivirus with 1,181,404 base pairs and codes for about 911 proteins. (most viruses only need 4 proteins)

The bacteria is considered alive, yet the virus is not... somewhere between these two genomes is the difference between life and not life.

Just because modern bacteria are fairly complex, that doesn't mean that their ancestors were as well. The first cells wouldn't have been much more complex than a virus is.

wa;do

 

[painted wolf]

But modern organisms can have "primitive" or basal traits.

Absolutely.... some basal traits are very useful, or at least not harmful.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Because you are still using modern cells as models for what those first cells would have been like.

Whoa! Running a lot ahead of yourself - aren't you?
You have not established that there ever was any "first cell." That's strictly theory! I have been trying to get some groundwork on the origin of your imaginary "first cell."
So far, nothing! Not even from your revered "Talkorigins."
Your faith is strong, man.

There is a lot of very interesting work going on to see just how little a cell requires to function... for example the smallest genome is amazingly tiny... only 160,000 base pairs and codes for only 182 proteins. Found in the bacteria Carsonella ruddi.

Why is that important? Cells do not make themselves, even though Richard Dawkins thinks so. Evolutionists speak endlessly about a phantom "organic soup" from which life emerged.

"What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans.

Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination?
No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?​

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules.......
Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity.
Could all of these be randomly acquired?​

There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: "Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life." (New Scientist, "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life," by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151)​

​

More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). ​

All appeared at random?​

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: "Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein." This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: "Which came first," the protein or the DNA? He asserts: "The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’" In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: "The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled."​

(Creation p. 45)

Not so simple - is it?​

By comparison the largest viral genome is mimivirus with 1,181,404 base pairs and codes for about 911 proteins. (most viruses only need 4 proteins)

The bacteria is considered alive, yet the virus is not... somewhere between these two genomes is the difference between life and not life.​

No such conditions exists or ever existed! Something is either alive or it isn't.

If viruses can be killed, then they are alive!

Just because modern bacteria are fairly complex, that doesn't mean that their ancestors were as well.

What does it mean? The cell was either complete in all its complexity or it fails. No transmission of life!

The first cells wouldn't have been much more complex than a virus is

What "first cells?" And - why not? Back to theory again?​

 

[outhouse]

LOL atleat you believe the facts regarding evolution LOL

abiogenesis has nothing to do with fossils

but you trash fossils and evolution so you have no credibility with abiogenesis.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Whoa! Running a lot ahead of yourself - aren't you?
You have not established that there ever was any "first cell." That's strictly theory! I have been trying to get some groundwork on the origin of your imaginary "first cell."
So far, nothing! Not even from your revered "Talkorigins."
Your faith is strong, man.

Why is that important? Cells do not make themselves, even though Richard Dawkins thinks so. Evolutionists speak endlessly about a phantom "organic soup" from which life emerged.
What does it mean? The cell was either complete in all its complexity or it fails. No transmission of life!

What "first cells?" And - why not? Back to theory again?[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]

Your post is so riddled with fallacies and misunderstandings that it is hard to know where to begin. So instead of picking it apart sentence by sentence, which, quite frankly, I cannot be bothered with, I'll lay out some basics for you.

To begin with there would probably only have been a replicating molecule, most likely a simple version of what we now call RNA. And to use your "scoop analogy" it is folly to think of it as one "scoop" in one "bowl". Rather it would have been billions of "scoops" in billions of "bowls" over millions of years. And for the replicator to arise and get started it would only have to be succesfully "scooped" once.

As for cell walls, they consist mostly of lipids, and the first proto-cell would not have had anything as complex as the cell walls we see today. Lipids are also what we call hydrophobic or amphiphilic, which makes them capable of forming membranes in aqueous environments.

So, there you have it, a potential and plausible beginning of the first cell.

Of course, we don't yet know for sure if this is exactly how it happened, but then again, none of this is necessary for the Theory of Evolution, and it is also irrelevant to the topic of this tread.

Can we now please get back on track?

 

[painted wolf]

Whoa! Running a lot ahead of yourself - aren't you?
You have not established that there ever was any "first cell." That's strictly theory! I have been trying to get some groundwork on the origin of your imaginary "first cell."
So far, nothing! Not even from your revered "Talkorigins."
Your faith is strong, man.

I don't revere Talkorigins.
Here is some recent research on proto-cells and their chemistry.
RNA can self-replicate without any cellular machinery How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time
lipid bi-layers can self form (these are essentially cell membranes) Lipid bilayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One inside the other and you have a cell. There is some groundwork for you.

Plus even even going by the bible, there would have to be a first cell.

Why is that important? Cells do not make themselves, even though Richard Dawkins thinks so. Evolutionists speak endlessly about a phantom "organic soup" from which life emerged.

I never claimed that they did make themselves. Nor do I ever use the "organic soup" analogy.
I'm talking about basic chemistry.

"What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans.

Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination?
No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?​

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules.......
Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity.
Could all of these be randomly acquired? ​

Selection is not random. Nor is the chemistry that controls how amino acids interact.

Also you don't need 2000 proteins for life to function... as I said earlier you need less than 200. And proteins are not so fragile and specific as your source presumes... they can function with changes in their structure, if they couldn't you would be dead right now. Usually there is only a tiny region of the protein that matters.
​

I could go on, but this is supposed to be a thread on fossils.

There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: "Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life." (New Scientist, "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life," by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151)

Again, you are confusing modern cells with the minimum requirements to be a living cell. A cell doesn't need all the complexity of modern membranes to function.
​

More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code.

Again, basic chemistry controls how nucleotides assemble and they can self replicate as RNA without cellular machinery.

Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes).

Only in Eukaryote... prokaryotes do fine without them.
​

All appeared at random? ​

Only if you believe chemistry, physics and selection are random.
​

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: "Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein." This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: "Which came first," the protein or the DNA? He asserts: "The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’" In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: "The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled."

​

(Creation p. 45)

Not so simple - is it?​

This is a little behind the times... RNA codes for the protiens that make DNA and RNA can self replicate. Modern living things can function just fine with a fraction of the proteins usually assumed are needed.
​

No such conditions exists or ever existed!

Ever? That's a huge leap of faith isn't it?

Something is either alive or it isn't.

If viruses can be killed, then they are alive!​

I fond the life/non-life argument fascinating... do you consider fire alive?

What about a prion? Even weirder than viruses, prions are proteins that can self-replicate and infect people. They don't need DNA or a cell, but reproduce by hijacking and reshaping other proteins. Can a single molecule be alive?

What does it mean? The cell was either complete in all its complexity or it fails. No transmission of life!

What "first cells?" And - why not? Back to theory again?

See this is why I addressed you and Auto... you are assuming the complexity of a modern cell is needed for all cells. What is worse your source assumes that all cells are Eukaryote cells and thus fails at the outset by the existence of Prokaryote cells. It's like saying a unicycle can't exist by saying all vehicles must be a Ferrari.
​

Plus you need to do a better job of citing the sources you grab quotes from... like this website: Discrediting Evolution: Origin of Life

If you didn't write it you need to clearly say so. Try putting it in bold, add a link to the source, change the color or something.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Whoa! Running a lot ahead of yourself - aren't you?
You have not established that there ever was any "first cell." That's strictly theory! I have been trying to get some groundwork on the origin of your imaginary "first cell."
So far, nothing! Not even from your revered "Talkorigins."
Your faith is strong, man.

START A THREAD.

Why is that important? Cells do not make themselves, even though Richard Dawkins thinks so. Evolutionists speak endlessly about a phantom "organic soup" from which life emerged.

"What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans.

Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination?
No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?​

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules.......
Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity.
Could all of these be randomly acquired?​

There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: "Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life." (New Scientist, "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life," by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151)​

More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). ​

All appeared at random?​

START A THREAD.

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching

Hitching the TV scriptwriter? Any particular reason you cite him as an expert on Biology?
​

No such conditions exists or ever existed! Something is either alive or it isn't.

If viruses can be killed, then they are alive!

What does it mean? The cell was either complete in all its complexity or it fails. No transmission of life!​

That's just silly. You can't imagine any other scenario?

What "first cells?" And - why not? Back to theory again?

START A THREAD.
​

​

[/quote]

 

[wilsoncole]

Your post is so riddled with fallacies and misunderstandings that it is hard to know where to begin. So instead of picking it apart sentence by sentence, which, quite frankly, I cannot be bothered with, I'll lay out some basics for you.

To begin with there would probably only have been a replicating molecule, most likely a simple version of what we now call RNA. And to use your "scoop analogy" it is folly to think of it as one "scoop" in one "bowl". Rather it would have been billions of "scoops" in billions of "bowls" over millions of years. And for the replicator to arise and get started it would only have to be succesfully "scooped" once.

As for cell walls, they consist mostly of lipids, and the first proto-cell (?) would not have had anything as complex as the cell walls we see today. Lipids are also what we call hydrophobic or amphiphilic, which makes them capable of forming membranes in aqueous environments.

So, there you have it, a potential and plausible beginning of the first cell.

Of course, we don't yet know for sure if this is exactly how it happened, but then again, none of this is necessary for the Theory of Evolution, and it is also irrelevant to the topic of this tread.

Can we now please get back on track?

These "basics" are laid for yourself.
Mr Jar,
You have not refuted anything I wrote with a single fact. This is borne out by the hypothetical nature of your entire response. You speak the language of the evolutionist.
If you deny the Genesis account of creation, then you should have something much more substantial to replace it with than phantom facts and hypotheses.

Besides, you said goodbye to me a while back and I took you at your word - so "we" have nothing to get back to.

 

[wilsoncole]

Hitching the TV scriptwriter? Any particular reason you cite him as an expert on Biology?

Did I cite him as an "expert" on Biology? Let’s see:

“If we trace the pattern, it should resemble a tree, with a trunk, huge limbs, branches, twigs, etc. Because even an entire Order or Family or whatever started out as a single species branching off from an existing species, just as an enormous limb of a tree started out as a twig growing off another branch. So even if we find a new species of beetle in Brazil, a new fish in the bottom of the arctic ocean, or a new slime mold in your fridge, we should be able to find an existing species that it is related to in just this way, and no other.” (Autodidact)

Can I use this quote to prove something?
Are you an expert on biology?

Listen - you are making a serious mistake when you choose not to investigate whether or not there is truth in the writings of others who occasionally say things that you don’t agree with.
Illustration:
A pedestrian dressed in Muslim garb with a bomb strapped to his body says:
“There a sinkhole up ahead - it will swallow your car.” You look at him and conclude: “Oh - he’s just a radical Muslim; we know how they think; can’t pay him any mind.”

You just might lose your car and your life.

Did Hitching say something that you can prove is untrue?
Why not do that?
You might accomplish something.

 

[jarofthoughts]

These "basics" are laid for yourself.
Mr Jar,
You have not refuted anything I wrote with a single fact. This is borne out by the hypothetical nature of your entire response. You speak the language of the evolutionist.

I have merely made plausible what you considered impossible. And that is all I have to do for now.

If you deny the Genesis account of creation, then you should have something much more substantial to replace it with than phantom facts and hypotheses.

If you deny the Norse account of creation, then you should have something much more substantial to replace it with than bronze-age myths and inconsistent stories.

Besides, you said goodbye to me a while back and I took you at your word - so "we" have nothing to get back to.

The tread... The tread has a subject, and we should get back to it. :slap:

 

[Big_TJ]

I have read nothing written by Kent Hovind (whoever that is) and I have no desire to speak about him or his dissertation.

Perhaps you should; you would find out how rediculous creationist can be.

 

[painted wolf]

How does a global flood account for the Ashfall Fossil Beds?

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

I don't revere Talkorigins.

Here is some recent research on proto-cells and their chemistry.
RNA can self-replicate without any cellular machinery

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time
lipid bi-layers can self form (these are essentially cell membranes) Lipid bilayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One inside the other and you have a cell. (?????) There is some groundwork for you.

“Groundwork” - in a lab? Living cells have never been made by men. Am I mistaken here? If life could be generated in a lab, it would have been done a long time ago and, as I pointed out before, it would only have proved that life had to have a creator.
You keep telling me what CAN take place. You seem to be extra careful not to say that they do.

Plus even even going by the bible, there would have to be a first cell.

Really? What part of the Bible gives you that idea?

I never claimed that they did make themselves.

And I never accused you of doing so. So why the denial?

Nor do I ever use the "organic soup" analogy.

Good for you. But that does not remove it from the scene.

I'm talking about basic chemistry.

“Basic” chemistry - good! You mean the kind that is evident in rocks? All rocks are made of minerals and minerals are composed of chemicals. You can dissolve a rock, separate its basic components and you find evidence of chemistry, mathematics, geology, etc, etc. How does rock become soil? Sand, humus and bacteria. Do you think these bacteria made themselves?

Selection is not random.

Really? Then how is this “selection” done and by whom?

Nor is the chemistry that controls how amino acids interact.

Are you sure that it is the chemistry that controls the interaction of amino acids? All by itself?

Also you don't need 2000 proteins for life to function... as I said earlier you need less than 200.

Now this, I am asking for information:
Where, outside of a lab, does life function on less that 200 proteins? And how did the correct amino acids come together to form a protein molecule?

And proteins are not so fragile and specific as your source presumes…

Fragile? Depends on the environment. Specific? Definitely.
As pointed out earlier, “ Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die.”

they

can function with changes in their structure,

Problem is - DO they?

if they couldn't you would be dead right now.

Will you show me how you made such a conclusion?

Usually there is only a tiny region of the protein that matters.

Then how convenient that they should be equipped with all this excess! Try stripping then down to what YOU consider to be the bare necessities, in nature.

Again, you are confusing modern cells with the minimum requirements to be a living cell.

In the lab - right?

A cell doesn't need all the complexity of modern membranes to function.

Then you are indirectly denying the evolutionary processes you so espouse.

 

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by painted wolf
Again, basic chemistry controls how nucleotides assemble and they [/quote]

can self replicate as RNA without cellular machinery.

Control? Chemistry can control nothing on its own. If it did, that would indicate that it had a purpose - again, denying the evolutionary process.

Only in Eukaryote... prokaryotes do fine without them.

Only if you believe chemistry, physics and selection are random.

I don’t, but you seem to. After all, a lack of randomness would indicate purpose - design.

This is a little behind the times... RNA codes for the protiens that make DNA and RNA

can self replicate. Modern living things can function just fine with a fraction of the proteins usually assumed are needed.

Will you quit with the “what CAN happen” scenario?

I could go on, but this is supposed to be a thread on fossils.

Do you realize that you have assigned personality traits to chemistry and selection?

I fond the life/non-life argument fascinating... do you consider fire alive?

What I find fascinating is your comparison of viruses to fire. A virus “reproduces,” not by cell-division, by attaching itself to a host cell - right?
And fire?

What about a prion? Even weirder than viruses, prions are proteins that can self-replicate and infect people.

As pointed out to Autodidact earlier, NOTHING can replicate or reproduce itself - only copies of itself.

They don't need DNA or a cell, but reproduce by hijacking and reshaping other proteins.

Whatever their method of reproduction, you can bet that it was not THEIR own idea.

Can a single molecule be alive?

Is blood alive? These things are components of living things. To be alive, they must be part of the whole organism.

See this is why I addressed you and Auto... you are assuming the complexity of a modern cell is needed for all cells. What is worse your source assumes that all cells are Eukaryote cells and thus fails at the outset by the existence of Prokaryote cells. It's like saying a unicycle can't exist by saying all vehicles must be a Ferrari.

Ridiculous! Those are inanimate objects.

Plus you need to do a better job of citing the sources you grab quotes from... like this website:

Discrediting Evolution: Origin of Life
If you didn't write it you need to clearly say so. Try putting it in bold, add a link to the source, change the color or something.

I never saw that website before. I always give credit and my sources. Most of my material is obtained from books and magazines that I own. Can't add links if they are not there in my books.
Be careful of accusing me of plagiarism because I can prove that your accusations are false. When you see things like: (Creation ch. 4 p.48), that is from a book I own.

 

[Duck]

Let's see what flavour of the year is for 2011. That is why I say the fossil record is not convincing. Perhaps if new finds confirmed hypothesis already held, instead of leading to new ones so often, it would be convincing. About the only thing that has stayed constant is that humans evolved from some primate. Instead the alterations and changes appears to be researchers grabbing at any straw to support Toe. Hence any hypothesis built on a foundation of straw will be easily torn down, as is the case with many past hypothesis on human evolution.

You understand how science works right? Generally, an observation is made (a fossil is found), some hypothesis is made (ancestor of genus Homo, in common with other members of family Hominidae), hypothesis is tested against existing evidence (aka. observations), hypothesis is accepted if it fits the existing evidence, another observation (a different fossil is found) is made, current hypothesis is tested against that new evidence (aka. the new observation). If the currently held hypothesis doesn't fit with the new observation then the hypothesis is either discarded or it is adjusted to fit the new sets of observations. Wash, rinse, repeat. Once a hypothesis has been tested against all observable evidence, and adequately explains all of the observations it is eventually accepted as a Theory. In the event that an accepted Theory is challenged by new evidence, there will be much debate, much research and probably a lot of heart-ache. While I was not alive, I seem to recall learning that there was quite a bit of debate regarding the mathematics, formula and postulates of Einstein which challenged accepted theories regarding space, time, and gravitational behavior.

None of the points you have brought up change the fact that there is a common ancestor between members of genii Pan and Homo. The only possible debate is whether the currently known fossils including Australopithecus and Ardipithecus fall in direct lineage with each other AND Homo sapiens sapiens or whether those two fossils represent closely related branches with an as yet undiscovered common ancestor. Of course, it is entirely possible the Ardipithecus is an ancestor of both Australopithecus and Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[wilsoncole]

How does a global flood account for the Ashfall Fossil Beds?

wa:do

Who are you asking?

 

[painted wolf]

“Groundwork” - in a lab? Living cells have never been made by men. Am I mistaken here? If life could be generated in a lab, it would have been done a long time ago and, as I pointed out before, it would only have proved that life had to have a creator.
You keep telling me what CAN take place. You seem to be extra careful not to say that they do.

Actually life has been made in the lab... Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life | Wired Science | Wired.com
How does replicating natural processes imply that a non-natural cause is needed for the natural process? Does the fact that we can make diamonds mean that diamonds all need someone to craft them by hand?

Really? What part of the Bible gives you that idea?

The bit where god makes stuff.... ? Wouldn't those have been the first cells?

And I never accused you of doing so. So why the denial?

Good for you. But that does not remove it from the scene.

It was implied... so I cleared it up for you.

“Basic” chemistry - good! You mean the kind that is evident in rocks? All rocks are made of minerals and minerals are composed of chemicals. You can dissolve a rock, separate its basic components and you find evidence of chemistry, mathematics, geology, etc, etc. How does rock become soil? Sand, humus and bacteria.

That's nice, but irrelevant... unless you think the minerals that form rocks need someone to put them in place?

Do you think these bacteria made themselves?

Did you bother to read anything I wrote?

Really? Then how is this “selection” done and by whom?

Some is done by life itself (predator/prey relationships for example) some is done by the environment (if you can't stand the cold you don't live through winter).

Are you sure that it is the chemistry that controls the interaction of amino acids? All by itself?

Unless, you think that god shuffles every amino acid around? I don't think god is that much of a micromanager... why, when you can set up a natural process to do it?

Now this, I am asking for information:

Where, outside of a lab, does life function on less that 200 proteins? And how did the correct amino acids come together to form a protein molecule?

I already told you... Carsonella ruddi.

Fragile? Depends on the environment. Specific? Definitely.

As pointed out earlier, “ Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die.”

Not all proteins are so specific. You will notice the use of the word "some" in your quote. For example the same protein can act as a hormone or an enzyme, that isn't terribly specific.

Problem is - DO they?

yes they do... for example: Hemoglobin needs to change it's form to function, that is how it binds to oxygen.... antibodies are made sloppy with lots of minor mistakes, this is why they can work against pathogens they have never encountered, by making a lot of mistakes you increase the odds of a happy accident.

Will you show me how you made such a conclusion?

see above.

Then how convenient that they should be equipped with all this excess! Try stripping then down to what YOU consider to be the bare necessities, in nature.

it is actually... you can trace evolutionary history by subtle changes in protein shapes... Like the blood groupings and so on.

In the lab - right?

nope.

Then you are indirectly denying the evolutionary processes you so espouse.

Not really.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Did I cite him as an "expert" on Biology?

Yes, otherwise why did you quote him?

Let’s see:

Can I use this quote to prove something?
Are you an expert on biology?

No, I rely on the reasoning I assert. No one should cite me because I'm an expert in Biology' I'm not. If my reasoning is correct, then my post is correct. btw, did you follow my reasoning? If so, can you see any fault with it?

Listen - you are making a serious mistake when you choose not to investigate whether or not there is truth in the writings of others who occasionally say things that you don’t agree with.

Who says I don't?
Illustration:

Did Hitching say something that you can prove is untrue?
Why not do that?
You might accomplish something.

because you're off topic, and you don't even seem to grasp that simple fact.

THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT EVOLUTION AND FOSSILS. If you have something to say on any other subject than EVOLUTION AND FOSSILS, please find another thread to do it in.

 

[Autodidact]

“Groundwork” - in a lab? Living cells have never been made by men. Am I mistaken here? If life could be generated in a lab, it would have been done a long time ago and, as I pointed out before, it would only have proved that life had to have a creator.

Either way, it would have nothing to do with the subject of this thread, which is FOSSILS AND EVOLUTION.

Really? Then how is this “selection” done and by whom?

It's not done by any being, but by nature.

 

[painted wolf]

Control? Chemistry can control nothing on its own. If it did, that would indicate that it had a purpose - again, denying the evolutionary process.

No, it just follows basic mathematical laws.

I don’t, but you seem to. After all, a lack of randomness would indicate purpose - design.

So god sculpts snowflakes?

Will you quit with the “what CAN happen” scenario?

Why? You insist on attributing purpose to everything from snowflakes to hydrogen bonds.
However, life does do those things... if you want to be pedantic about language I'll be more careful.

Do you realize that you have assigned personality traits to chemistry and selection?

only poetically... Chemistry and selection are mathematical operations ultimately.
You can assume that someone designed the math, but it doesn't change the equation.

What I find fascinating is your comparison of viruses to fire. A virus “reproduces,” not by cell-division, by attaching itself to a host cell - right?

And fire?

One could say fire reproduces by traveling on embers from one fuel source to another.

As pointed out to Autodidact earlier, NOTHING can replicate or reproduce itself - only copies of itself.

What is the difference? Though some jellyfish are functionally immortal (switching back and forth from adult to juvenile) and produce clones of themselves. There is a lot of cloning in nature.

Whatever their method of reproduction, you can bet that it was not THEIR own idea.

Why should it be their idea? Is it waters idea to become ice?

Is blood alive? These things are components of living things. To be alive, they must be part of the whole organism.

Can blood self replicate? Prions can and do... they can travel from one species to another and slowly destroy their host organism... Mad Cow disease is the result of prion infestation.

Ridiculous! Those are inanimate objects.

So design only applies to living things?

I never saw that website before.
I always give credit and my sources. Most of my material is obtained from books and magazines that I own. Can't add links if they are not there in my books.

Be careful of accusing me of plagiarism because I can prove that your accusations are false. When you see things like: (Creation ch. 4 p.48), that is from a book I own.

Can you give me the ISBN number so I can check it out? It should be on the back of the book or on the title page. I like to know what sources I'm dealing with whenever possible.

And I didn't accuse you of plagiarism... just not properly citing your sources, there is an important difference.

wa:do