Re: Article: The Origin of Life

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:50:19 GMT, Nashton wrote:

Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Nashton" <nananan@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:XrXFg.51928$pu3.615160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snipping

Just curious.

Most evolutionists in here and elsewhere claim that there is no reason for
life to tend to become more complicated.

That's not really true. There is no reason why life *must* become more
complicated, but there are reasons why life *may* become more complicated.
If becoming more complicated gives some kind of reproductive advantage, it
will be selected for by natural selection.

How can you say this when you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what
form that proto-life posessed?

Because the form of the proto-life is irrelevant to the question you
asked and the answer you were given.

They claim that it is a process lacking any determinism and that given the
lack of any need to "evolve", that organism maintains the status quo ante.

Evolution is not a process driven by the "needs" of the individual. A
population doesn't "need" to evolve, it's something that happens to the
population over generations. If there is no change in the enviroment,
there is no selectional pressure for the population to undergo morphological
change.

It doesn't, but it does. Why, according to you, did the proto-cell not
just stop evolving? I doubt you even understand the question.

It can only stop evolving if it is
1. a perfect replicator and conditions never change, or
2. extinct.

Apparently it chose (2).

My question is: If a primitive or proto-cell (if there ever were such a
thing) could continue going on with just some RNA as its replicating
material and a simple semi-permeable fatty acid as an envelope could haver
survived in its simple state, why would complexity increase?

Because when something is at the lowest level of complexity, the only way to
go is up.

Up where? Yours?
Why can't life become less complex? Random fluctuations can go south as
well as north on a scale, you know. If life's purpose is a la Dawkin's,
selfish, it would choose the simplest way to exist. A bit of RNA, an
envelope, some enzymes and an internal network and voila!

So if it pretty much started that that way, there is not much room in
the downward direction, but there is plenty of room in the upward
direction. See, even you can understand this stuff Nicky/Stupid if you
just take the religions blinders off.

What would be the impetus?

Like any evolutionary change, the impetus is to leave more offspring. If a
series of mutations produces a more efficient way of living, that life form
will tend to leave more offspring. The "impetus" is something like what
is the impetus for a balloon to get bigger as you add more air. As more
and more life forms replicate, it gets harder for the original to make a
living. Any innovation that makes reproduction, or living more efficient
is going to be selected. Eventually the more efficient life forms out
compete the less efficient ones.

Secondly, how the heck to you get phospholipids out of nothing in the
environment in order to get a proto-cell with a coating?

Obviously the phosholipids don't come out of "nothing". They come from the
chemical make up of the enviroment. Check out this paper for more
information:

Furuuchi R, Imai E, Honda H, Hatori K, Matsuno K. Evolving lipid vesicles in
prebiotic hydrothermal environments. Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2005
Aug;35(4):333-43.

For six pages of similar citations, see:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=16228647

http://tinyurl.com/posjj

And how likely is it that these molecules (RNA and phospholipids) could
have been in proximity to somehow merge and create primitive life?

Since formation of lipid vesicles is not uncommon, it's apparently not
impossible.

Thirdly, it seems to almost always boil down to chicken and egg circular
argument. RNA can't replicate without proteins, proteins can't be produced
with RNA etc., etc.

For more information on the evolution of protiens, see:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_the_first_proteins
http://www.la-press.com/EBO-1-Gabaldon(Pr).pdf#search='evolution%20of%20proteins'
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11917006

As I mentioned before in previous posts, it must be very unsatisfying to
evolutionists to not be able to replicate life or duplicate the conditions
that they believe created it in the first place.

This is why Nikky will never understand science. For anyone interested in
science, unanswered questions are not a reason to feel "unsatisfied".
Unanswered questions are the life blood of science, and the reason why
scientists keep going. Scientists live for open questions, and the chance
to try to solve them.

Unless this mystery is resolved and some time soon, the ToE is missing one
of its most important elements.

Abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution, and even if the puzzle
of abiogenesis is never solved, the theory of evolution remains just as
strong and vital as always.

How can one say how life evolved if no one has the faintest how it all
began?

Quite easily. We don't know how life began, but we have plenty of knowlege
of how it evolved. It's also not true to say that "no one has the faintest
[idea?] how it began". The exact mechanism is not yet know, but there are
some tantilizing clues to how life began. Abiogenesis remains a facinating
field of study.

;)

PS: I'm awaiting and expecting the usual barrage of insults, accusations
of being a liar, irrelevant answers by Tweedy, Ronny O taking a hissy fit
and popping yet another vein, Wilkins making the obvious complicated by
showing off his lexicon of philosophical terms etc., etc.

Well, I can't disappoint the boy, although my answer is quite relevant.

DJT


I don't think you know enough or have a solid enough grasp of biology,
logic or reasoning skills to understand where I'm coming from.

Possibly correct, as where you are coming from has nothing to do with
those fields, and everyting to do with a small branch of religion, which
actively rejects logic and reasoning and considers biology *dirty*.

Can you please just not answer my posts? You're annoying.

Poor Nicky, wrong again, Dana's answers are quite educational, and often
entertaining. Oh wait a minute, you're a fundy, and so you are probably
against both education and entertainment.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... > While it would definitely change a persons life for the better if they ... > What is the point in pushing evolution on anybody? ... are the reason for the earthquakes and much more interesting ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Closing my site
    ... life altering stuff going on in my life. ... says "I" am the reason for her distrust of newbies. ... And as far as choosing your friends for you.....lets not bullshit ... Carol: ...
    (alt.med.fibromyalgia)
  • 101 Carlin quotes
    ... Just when I discovered the meaning of life, ... The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently ... which I was until I reached the age of reason. ... The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Excellent article - gameplay vs glitz etc
    ... to pray for guidance, strength & Faith, just as any Christian would today. ... It was his Faith in his Father & of course his freedom from Original Sin ... >temptations put before him in this short miserable life, ... >"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
  • Re: The universe looks designed to me
    ... > and animal species is in fact evidence *for* evolution. ... >>world view and see no reason to depart from it. ... > Science didn't race towards these ideas. ... Try reading _The Wellspring of Life_ ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading