What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, you need to over come odds for getting the book written.
I'll allow you all the energy you need, all the paper or disk
drive space if you want to save the trees, monkeys that never
tire, get hungry leave for bathroom breaks, and so on. You
have to get the book written, I doubt you'll get the first page
with a hundred billion years, but that is me.
Kelly

but that's not the way that evolution (or even abiogenesis) works. You're missing out the important bit - the retention and mutation of favourable constructs.

Originally posted by Nosrac
33 Pages and what do I see?
Evolution still admist thee.

Try this url: www.answersingenesis.org

You won't be barking up the wrong tree!

Dude with poem, now I get ya.

I will pray for all of you.

If you are a Christian: WAY COOOLLLL!!!!

If not, then look in the Book of Genesis

in the book our Father gave us: The Bible.

Yes, I know some ...[text shortened]... ead, and for those scientists out there

who doubt creation: LOOK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Thanks Carson, insightful, erudite, useful as ever ...

What a marvelous addition to the debate.
Your words are as useful as a crate
Of fecal crap
Thanks again old chap!

Originally posted by amannion
Nice one.
So just to summarise for the less technically inclined (or interested) - life is full of flaws; unneccesary flaws. An intelligent designer might be expected to construct living things without such flaws.

Another way to consider this point is: if a creationist were to argue that the flaws in living things were deliberately created, then why wou ...[text shortened]... Hoyle as an attempt to explain the difficulty of life forming on Earth by chemical abiogenesis.

Many thanks Amannion. Indeed life is full of flaws but yes of course to a degree however it is also full, as you well know, of entities populating evolutionary design space (dare I say evolutionary design space-time) that are exquisitely adapted to a particular niche which is a precarious position if the local environment changes rapidly (major ET bolide e.g. a comet/meteorite or more prosaically a big elephants foot squashing unluckily all genogroups of the only known example of some “beyond Ming vase” valuable sub-species of the only extant specimen of some entomologists fantasies which is the Sewall-Wright effect I think but I am in reality half remembering some zoology lecture or a snipet someplace).

The flaws are the strength in essence which is true in science itself also and please see “The logic of Life” Francois Jacob (of Jacob and Monod lac operon fame). Mutations are synonymous with errors though we all use the word it is a loaded term influencing our thinking in an unspeak manner like the “wrong” in the title of this very thread. Mutations generated by the replication apparatus of DNA polymerase (for generating the molecular and requisite diversity for possessing the latent potentiality for unfurling new options and developmental programmes) occurs when replicating the 2n of the zygote (fused sperm and egg) to produce by cell division of these two daughter cells 4n produces genome size divided by error rate of DNA pol loosely speaking number of recessive alleles over the whole sequence because of the intrinsic nature of the copying process. These are masked largely in the genomes of organisms at a higher order (organismal level) but provide an inherit, adaptable flexibility for some unforeseen event coming right about now to unfurl new developemental/ontogenetic programmes. (This is the work I mentioned earlier on regarding the molecular chaperones, which as their name implies, serve to help fold misfolded proteins but there is something of a prion in the works here and still being worked out despite the outstanding PSI work in yeast). This single locus (location in Latin of course) variation is the very bread and butter of studying evolution practically speaking on a molecular level (once one has raised ones buttocks from the armchair) and this genetic diversity in a healthy out breeding, fecund species like this is technically termed by the acronym SNPs = single nucelotide polymorphisms or snips in the trade used for lots of different important work.

Genome scan SNP analysis would be one way to measure say circulating H7N1 influenza or any genetic entity to get landmarks across the physical map and lower level restriction map to the individual gene themselves when positional cloning in disease genes predisposing to or overtly responsible for say CF. Genotype them by phylogenetics to known extant/extinct relatives by heavy computer phylogenetic reconstruction which takes a lot of time and power to do. If I have all known genomes of all life on this planet and unlimited computer power a deep time branching phylogentic tree with high bootstraps heading back to the hypothetical LUCA at the dawn of life here can be attempted but a council of perfection it is and the sun goes supernova or so the astronomers tell us as Russell pointed out 5x10e9 years hence. Why did s/he put us here for feck sake if that is the case? More special pleading answers please on a postcard.

These SNPs in the bank, so to say, can then be potentially be used (or might never be like unused chess variations but essentially required in a time of war to track your enemy i.e. an arms race) so when the going gets tough options are possible. Not wishing to complicate matters further (ah well jaysus I am!) also there appear higher order epigenetics (ety. epi = upon genetics i.e. riding atop the primary sequence viz. the quaternary ATGC of the thing there exists secondary etc. higher order up to chromosome level). Genetics, like covalent chemistry thanks to Pauling and others, is largely worked out so while chemists work elsewhere I assume now while still assiduously tending the garden they have found as it were in my limited understanding of that field, also similarly modern day genetics looks to new horizons so these workers viz. scientists/molecular biologists/gene transcription workers now accept the large details of the perpetuation of the DNA itself is understood broadly speaking that we must now study epigenetics next to understand many things we are clueless about but particularly how expression states are established in a metazoan and perpetuated in the soma and the germline cells. Respectively the aforementioned cells are mortal and immortal the latter perpetuating the line traceable back we believe with some evidence (nay lots if I’m being honest from all over the shop) to the original hypothetical last universal common ancestor we all call LUCA "Ciao LUCA!". A bit like waiting for Godot really.

I appreciate this is a lot for some folk to take in but you can see the directed nature of the evolution of the very scientific research practically speaking all working diligently on some personally fascinating little piece for inclusion in a final massive jigsaw or temple of knowledge, an ultimate memory palace or dare I say tower of Babel that will never be built because we simply cannot know it all because of intrinsic limitations to the H. sapiens CNS and many other factors.

Apologies in advance for definitions within definitions but I am feebly attempting to inform and frame reference standards to continue an intelligent discussion as others have righly suggested rather than the latest thing out of folks mouths being "the next big thing thing" and classic baby out of the bathwater nonsense; please see The Art of Always Being Right: Thirty Eight Ways to Win When You Are Defeated by the great cynic Arthur Schopenhauer as one reviewer states nicely in a review on amazon "It's written as a how-to manual with 38 easy rules for winning an argument as your hapless opponent clings to quaint standards of logic and rational debate...". In front of an ignorant audience certain debating tactics are employed that are not sufficient when debating personally or in front of respected peer groups who frankly don’t believe ya and will say so and very right and correct to do so.

Epigenetics = changes in expression state of a gene(s) i.e. an operon (co-ordinated regulatory gene set i.e. genes on a string in a line) operating in concert not influenced by the primary DNA sequence i.e. 5’-ATG GGG TCG-3’ can indeed in triplets encode methionine start of protein then small hydrophobic glycine then basic group amino acid chemically serine but higher order effects may render this hypothetical three amino acid gene quiet. It is a big area and major topic now for understanding how genetic information is propagated from the 2n zygote (fusion of sperm (n) and oocyte i.e. egg (another n so ipso facto 2n i.e. in humans 46 chromosomes from 23) through ontogeny/embrogenesis where developmental programmes are activated in a tissue restricted pattern from ES cells and intriguingly can these be passed in a quasi-Lamarckian sense to the next generation.

I love Lamarck more than Darwin just because he is an underdog I tell myself (the infrancophile in me) and he keeps coming back and causing a fuss forcing staid old ideas to be dusted down. Remember ignorance is always just around the corner and the redoubtable Moravian monk in Brno (Mendel) when independently re-discovered in three separate places and events c. 1900 one of the re-discoverers (DeVries I think) said the pages in the journal where uncut (never read after printing) which is tragic but heroic when realised the torch never really dropped fully (see the "Clock of the long now" -Stewart a futurist and references therein particularly "How the Irish saved civilisation" - Cahill (don’t shot/burn!).

Regarding worms don’t get me started! Caenorhabditis elegans is the invertebrate genetic workhorse (with the yeasts and the famous fruitfly model of the great Morgan) and Mus and E. coli too among others and it is arguable that the most knowledge accumulated in
any human sphere is on this 1mm +/- 0.1 long nematode of Brenner’s that lives abundantly in soil worldwide in temperate climates with a complete genome sequence i.e. primary nucleotide (~1x10e8) and complete description of the ontogeny of all 959 cells of the completed ~3 day old adult hermaphrodite (1031 cells in the spontaneously arising males useful for genetics too).

Apollo so loved both Hermes and Aphrodite he fused the sexes together so he could love as one so it is both sexes in one in essence so the n of the sperm fuse with the n of the egg in one organism, sans male involvement, will involve the combining of the genomes of each to produce a zygote (2n) which develops by division (mitosis) to 4n etc. to eventually 959 cells complete adult hermaphrodite (some die off along the way or are sculpted) with 302 neurons fully mapped (itself a small world network and biological is going networks now). However there are epigenetic considerations in this developmental scheme which involve cytoplasmic factors in the larger egg the sperm penetrates such as mitochondria (the resident endosymbiotic bacteria we all have “to power cells”; see Margilus) which contain their own DNA and also conceivably and actually known other "maternal factors" environmentally influenced which could be quasi-Lamarckian. Viz. de novo (anew) mutations in eggs or sperm remember in a self fertilising genetic entity originally a clone essentially the previous generations zygote from which this adult was created i.e. mutations through development from DNA pol, RNA editing etc. etc. so conceivably the life experience of that particular sperm and that particular egg could contribute to the new F1 (third generation here) genetic repertoire...

Originally posted by micarr
Many thanks Amannion. Indeed life is full of flaws but yes of course to a degree however it is also full, as you well know, of entities populating evolutionary design space (dare I say evolutionary design space-time) that are exquisitely adapted to a particular niche which is a precarious position if the local environment changes rapidly (major ET bolide e.g. ...[text shortened]... ar egg could contribute to the new F1 (third generation here) genetic repertoire...

which is to mind dare I say Lamarckian. None of the above invalidates the overarching aegis of evolution by natural selection in the slightest but is a level of epigenetic subtlety in essence that is modern day molecular biology’s hot sh*t.

The central point is a council of perfection is called for by creationists when uselessly pinpointing errors and gaps in evolutionary knowledge. A council of perfection exists in no human domain of knowledge and never will and is a ludicrous and ultimately fruitless way to argue (please see and read Schopenhauer above) and intellectually equivalent to the never ending “Why?” questioning of our young termed teleology I think which adults quickly tire of naturally because we wish to do something practical, seriously minded and disciplined in some small way to contribute and which we try to train others to do also so the thing can continue in our absence. Please look at following URL here if you do actually want to see what people are trying to do away from the comfy chair where hand waving is great fun too I must admit! http://raven.zoology.washington.edu/celldynamics/research/genenet/index.html

Originally posted by scottishinnz
but that's not the way that evolution (or even abiogenesis) works. You're missing out the important bit - the retention and mutation of favourable constructs.

The event of abiogenesis?

How do you know how abiogenesis works, when you talk about it,
are you referring to something you have witnessed, recorded, or
tested, or are we referring to your beliefs surrounding something
imagined that possibly did occur, because if is just ‘believed.’

Since as it has been pointed out to me what people believe about
science is different than what people believe about God, just
because we see life isn’t an acceptable answer for abiogenesis
any more, because I see life I can now count that for God, since I
believe God created life and the results would be equally valid if that
is all there to it. If that is all there is to it, than the beliefs about
abiogenesis are no different than the beliefs about God, they are
just beliefs, period. They can be true or not, the reality of either
rests beyond man's ability to know for sure.

Do you know the conditions surrounding the event of
life’s beginning?


What was the favorable temperature surrounding that event? Was
that temperature constant year round? These change you don’t get
a second chance to keep what was done right, you would now have
all life dying.

What was the food supply for the life after that event? If life starved
after it was put together; you don’t get a second chance, all the life
dies.

Life had to start with the ability to multiply, just being alive isn’t
good enough if it cannot reproduce no second chance after the first
generation it all dies off and no life.

I can give you a list a mile long on if you get any thing wrong, or get
them right but have them change, you don’t get a second chance!
No, you have to over come some major odds, and all your ducks need
to be in a row! If you are telling me ‘the theory of evolution or
abiogenesis says this’ then we are no longer talking about reality are
we? We are now molding the belief to over come reality, which is not
the same things as, this is reality and seeing it makes us believe this
is what occurred. Molding the belief to over come reality is what people
who believe in God are accused of doing, we don't understand so God
did it, now it would be, we don't understand so evolution did it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Nosrac
Ok, then, if you think the Bible is BUNK
then PROVE it.
Chap? I'm a chap now? Whatever.
However, before you start knocking the Bible
think of your children...the ones you want to play chess...
think of how awesome their minds would be if their
faith was in Jesus!
Oh yeah, start with the book of Genesis.
Good luck.

C'mon are you really so stupid?
I can prove the bible is not literally true - could do that on my head - shit everyone's done that. But that won't convincve you now will it.
Carson I think about my children every day - and I 'pray' that they never become religious. Of course, unliek many religious indoctrinations, that final decisoin I'll leave up to them when they're ready for it.

What was the food supply for the life after that event? If life starved
after it was put together; you don’t get a second chance, all the life
dies.

Life had to start with the ability to multiply, just being alive isn’t
good enough if it cannot reproduce no second chance after the first
generation it all dies off and no life.

I can give you a list a mile long on if you get any thing wron ...[text shortened]... 't understand so God
did it, now it would be, we don't understand so evolution did it.
Kelly[/b]

What was the food supply for the life after that event?

Inorganic molecules. NTPs, phospholipids, etc.

Life had to start with the ability to multiply, just being alive isn’t
good enough if it cannot reproduce no second chance after the first
generation it all dies off and no life.

Phospholipid vesicles and nucleic acids multiply by their very nature. Reproduction came before life.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm obessed with it being called a fact by more than a few people
when it isn't. I don't like that much of its foundation is really between
the ears of people, and no where else. I like things being called what
they are, if it is a fact, call it a fact, if it is faith, don't deny it, things
are not always what people want them to be, or what they call them.
Kelly

Sure, it's a theory - go look that up.

A theory is an EXPLANATION of a set of facts.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]What was the food supply for the life after that event?

Inorganic molecules. NTPs, phospholipids, etc.

Life had to start with the ability to multiply, just being alive isn’t
good enough if it cannot reproduce no second chance after the first
generation it all dies off and no life.

Phospholipid vesicles and nucleic acids multiply by their very nature. Reproduction came before life.[/b]

What books have you read on the matter KellyJay I might be able to recommend something general as others can as well I am sure.

Note please how we have now clumsily moved back to another creationist rock "abiogenesis" after the immutability of species irreducible complexity "argument" apparently proved troublesome to the fixed and certain minds on here. This pattern of confusion or to use chess parlance diversionary tactics is a common theme in a dialogue with the deaf. Listening is a function of the ear, hearing is a function of the mind or was it the other way around haha!

"Nothing is more dangerous than the certainty that one is right. Nothing potentially so destructive as a truth one considers absolute" Francios Jacob "The Logic of Life - a history of hereditry and the possible and the actual". Highly recommended.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The event of abiogenesis?

How do you know how abiogenesis works, when you talk about it,
are you referring to something you have witnessed, recorded, or
tested, or are we referring to your beliefs surrounding something
imagined that possibly did occur, because if is just ‘believed.’

Since as it has been pointed out to me what people believe about
...[text shortened]... t understand so God
did it, now it would be, we don't understand so evolution did it.
Kelly

I'm starting a new thread on this.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm starting a new thread on this.

Good stuff scottishinnz! If we are to count the creationist counter-hypotheses to the theory of evolution by natural selection up how many do we have? I think irreducible complexity/intelligent design is done to death IMHO.