Reply With Quote
Not really, it's just those two camps that do the most talking.There are really two camps, the Religion>Science crowd and the Science>Religion crowd.
OK boutons_ get some dark matter for me.... I already told you I believed in its existence.
The point was ChumpDumper wanted me to give him angel fossils. And I said "sure, when you get me some dark matter." (Of course originally I wrote down anti-matter -- but I was speaking of dark matter). Not that he would have been able to get some anti-matter anyway.
Not really, it's just those two camps that do the most talking.There are really two camps, the Religion>Science crowd and the Science>Religion crowd.
DNA strands don't reproduce. RNA stands do.
All that it takes is just some very simple self-replicating proteins. This requires very little in the way of complexity.
Sooner or later it is a statistical certainty that some of those proteins will change slightly. Some of those changes will, with a statistical certainty, lead to a version of the protein that is better adapted to its evironment, and enable that version of the protein to out-reproduce the proceeding versions.
The complexity increases over time with new adaptations. The adaptations aren't quite random--they will favor changes that allow for more reproduction.
I am not talking a 20 segment section.
I am talking essentially about a quadranary number billions of digits long. Replace each of the four chemicals a number 1,2,3,4.
Common ancestors start with a number trillions of digits long and that number will change over time as different populations diverge into new species.
New species=New number
The closer two species are in the evolutionary tree, the longer the numbers that match.
Not any more than you can give angel fossils...
The difference between the two is that dark matter can be inferred from physics, and angel fossils can be inferred from... what?
Show me an equation that infers the existence of angel fossils.
"get some dark matter for me."
There is evidence of dark matter now, as the article said, the scientists are working on more evidence and better understanding, which will amount to more evidence than you have for 6-day creation and new earth creation.
Light years away!!!! CD wanted tangible evidence. You missed the whole point of the analogy.
But that's OK, I don't need you to understand it. It's not like you will ever change your mind -- it's already set.
Whoopdeee dooooo....
DNA strands don't self-replicate... but they require a myriad of proteins just to allow the replication process - including RNA.
The odds we're talking about here are higher than accounting for a mutation every second for every second that's ever existed (even with a 13 billion year-old or an 18 billion year-old universe model). You still wouldn't get a viable strand of DNA.
BTW I hold a degree in Bio-Engineering. There is more relevance than meets the eye in terms of random articles here and there claiming to have discovered this or that. Trust me, most geneticists I know, truly understand the complexity of the code we're dealing with here and are in complete awe of DNA.
Edit: That's not to say that everything you wrote was completely wrong. Merely that there is more to it than what's on the surface.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-24-2006 at 11:03 PM.
GENOMES have to match... not random segments --- because even the non-coding regions are placed there for a purpose.
The location is just as important as the code itself.
I was saying that some of the more bizzare looking hominid fossils could in fact be those of angel hybrids. In which case more physical evidence is attained. Can it be proven? Probably not. That would first require that the person believe in Angels in the first place.
Did you even read that part of the thread? I discussed the whole hominid fossil controversy in full...
Last edited by LaMarcus Bryant; 08-24-2006 at 09:58 PM.
It's as if some of us are playing Metaphysical I Spy.
Agreed my mind is already set ... dead set against evidence-free bull fairy tales from you Bible-thumpers.
I actually am very open minded about scientific work, and enjoy when some old scientific axiom or paradigm gets ripped up and thrown out. eg:
================================
Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel
By GINA KOLATA
Everyone who has even thought about exercising has heard the warnings about lactic acid. It builds up in your muscles. It is what makes your muscles burn. Its buildup is what makes your muscles tire and give out.
Coaches and personal trainers tell athletes and exercisers that they have to learn to work out at just below their "lactic threshold," that point of diminishing returns when lactic acid starts to ac ulate. Some athletes even have blood tests to find their personal lactic thresholds.
But that, it turns out, is all wrong. Lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid.
( I knew the the heart muscles consumed lactic acid as fuel, but like everybody else, I always heard that lactic acid was the enemy of skeletal muscles )
The notion that lactic acid was bad took hold more than a century ago, said George A. Brooks, a professor in the department of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley. It stuck because it seemed to make so much sense.
"It's one of the classic mistakes in the history of science," Dr. Brooks said.
Its origins lie in a study by a Nobel laureate, Otto Meyerhof, who in the early years of the 20th century cut a frog in half and put its bottom half in a jar. The frog's muscles had no circulation * no source of oxygen or energy.
Dr. Myerhoff gave the frog's leg electric shocks to make the muscles contract, but after a few twitches, the muscles stopped moving. Then, when Dr. Myerhoff examined the muscles, he discovered that they were bathed in lactic acid.
A theory was born. Lack of oxygen to muscles leads to lactic acid, leads to fatigue.
Athletes were told that they should spend most of their effort exercising aerobically, using glucose as a fuel. If they tried to spend too much time exercising harder, in the anaerobic zone, they were told, they would pay a price, that lactic acid would ac ulate in the muscles, forcing them to stop.
Few scientists questioned this view, Dr. Brooks said. But, he said, he became interested in it in the 1960's, when he was running track at Queens College and his coach told him that his performance was limited by a buildup of lactic acid.
When he graduated and began working on a Ph.D. in exercise physiology, he decided to study the lactic acid hypothesis for his dissertation.
"I gave rats radioactive lactic acid, and I found that they burned it faster than anything else I could give them," Dr. Brooks said.
It looked as if lactic acid was there for a reason. It was a source of energy.
Dr. Brooks said he published the finding in the late 70's. Other researchers challenged him at meetings and in print.
"I had huge fights, I had terrible trouble getting my grants funded, I had my papers rejected," Dr. Brooks recalled. But he soldiered on, conducting more elaborate studies with rats and, years later, moving on to humans. Every time, with every study, his results were consistent with his radical idea.
Eventually, other researchers confirmed the work. And gradually, the thinking among exercise physiologists began to change.
"The evidence has continued to mount," said L. Bruce Gladden, a professor of health and human performance at Auburn University. "It became clear that it is not so simple as to say, Lactic acid is a bad thing and it causes fatigue."
As for the idea that lactic acid causes muscle soreness, Dr. Gladden said, that never made sense.
"Lactic acid will be gone from your muscles within an hour of exercise," he said. "You get sore one to three days later. The time frame is not consistent, and the mechanisms have not been found."
The understanding now is that muscle cells convert glucose or glycogen to lactic acid. The lactic acid is taken up and used as a fuel by mitochondria, the energy factories in muscle cells.
Mitochondria even have a special transporter protein to move the substance into them, Dr. Brooks found. Intense training makes a difference, he said, because it can make double the mitochondrial mass.
It is clear that the old lactic acid theory cannot explain what is happening to muscles, Dr. Brooks and others said.
Yet, Dr. Brooks said, even though coaches often believed in the myth of the lactic acid threshold, they ended up training athletes in the best way possible to increase their mitochondria. "Coaches have understood things the scientists didn't," he said.
Through trial and error, coaches learned that athletic performance improved when athletes worked on endurance, running longer and longer distances, for example.
That, it turns out, increased the mass of their muscle mitochondria, letting them burn more lactic acid and allowing the muscles to work harder and longer.
Just before a race, coaches often tell athletes to train very hard in brief spurts.
That extra stress increases the mitochondria mass even more, Dr. Brooks said, and is the reason for improved performance.
And the scientists?
They took much longer to figure it out.
"They said, 'You're anaerobic, you need more oxygen,' " Dr. Brooks said. "The scientists were stuck in 1920."
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
That's a good article, seriously..... But you posting the article in defense of your hatred for anything 'religious' still doesn't explain your bigoted disdain for ID.Agreed my mind is already set ... dead set against evidence-free bull fairy tales from you Bible-thumpers.
I actually am very open minded about scientific work, and enjoy when some old scientific axiom or paradigm gets ripped up and thrown out. eg:
================================
Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel
By GINA KOLATA
Everyone who has even thought about exercising has heard the warnings about lactic acid. It builds up in your muscles. It is what makes your muscles burn. Its buildup is what makes your muscles tire and give out.
Coaches and personal trainers tell athletes and exercisers that they have to learn to work out at just below their "lactic threshold," that point of diminishing returns when lactic acid starts to ac ulate. Some athletes even have blood tests to find their personal lactic thresholds.
But that, it turns out, is all wrong. Lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid.
( I knew the the heart muscles consumed lactic acid as fuel, but like everybody else, I always heard that lactic acid was the enemy of skeletal muscles )
The notion that lactic acid was bad took hold more than a century ago, said George A. Brooks, a professor in the department of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley. It stuck because it seemed to make so much sense.
"It's one of the classic mistakes in the history of science," Dr. Brooks said.
Its origins lie in a study by a Nobel laureate, Otto Meyerhof, who in the early years of the 20th century cut a frog in half and put its bottom half in a jar. The frog's muscles had no circulation * no source of oxygen or energy.
Dr. Myerhoff gave the frog's leg electric shocks to make the muscles contract, but after a few twitches, the muscles stopped moving. Then, when Dr. Myerhoff examined the muscles, he discovered that they were bathed in lactic acid.
A theory was born. Lack of oxygen to muscles leads to lactic acid, leads to fatigue.
Athletes were told that they should spend most of their effort exercising aerobically, using glucose as a fuel. If they tried to spend too much time exercising harder, in the anaerobic zone, they were told, they would pay a price, that lactic acid would ac ulate in the muscles, forcing them to stop.
Few scientists questioned this view, Dr. Brooks said. But, he said, he became interested in it in the 1960's, when he was running track at Queens College and his coach told him that his performance was limited by a buildup of lactic acid.
When he graduated and began working on a Ph.D. in exercise physiology, he decided to study the lactic acid hypothesis for his dissertation.
"I gave rats radioactive lactic acid, and I found that they burned it faster than anything else I could give them," Dr. Brooks said.
It looked as if lactic acid was there for a reason. It was a source of energy.
Dr. Brooks said he published the finding in the late 70's. Other researchers challenged him at meetings and in print.
"I had huge fights, I had terrible trouble getting my grants funded, I had my papers rejected," Dr. Brooks recalled. But he soldiered on, conducting more elaborate studies with rats and, years later, moving on to humans. Every time, with every study, his results were consistent with his radical idea.
Eventually, other researchers confirmed the work. And gradually, the thinking among exercise physiologists began to change.
"The evidence has continued to mount," said L. Bruce Gladden, a professor of health and human performance at Auburn University. "It became clear that it is not so simple as to say, Lactic acid is a bad thing and it causes fatigue."
As for the idea that lactic acid causes muscle soreness, Dr. Gladden said, that never made sense.
"Lactic acid will be gone from your muscles within an hour of exercise," he said. "You get sore one to three days later. The time frame is not consistent, and the mechanisms have not been found."
The understanding now is that muscle cells convert glucose or glycogen to lactic acid. The lactic acid is taken up and used as a fuel by mitochondria, the energy factories in muscle cells.
Mitochondria even have a special transporter protein to move the substance into them, Dr. Brooks found. Intense training makes a difference, he said, because it can make double the mitochondrial mass.
It is clear that the old lactic acid theory cannot explain what is happening to muscles, Dr. Brooks and others said.
Yet, Dr. Brooks said, even though coaches often believed in the myth of the lactic acid threshold, they ended up training athletes in the best way possible to increase their mitochondria. "Coaches have understood things the scientists didn't," he said.
Through trial and error, coaches learned that athletic performance improved when athletes worked on endurance, running longer and longer distances, for example.
That, it turns out, increased the mass of their muscle mitochondria, letting them burn more lactic acid and allowing the muscles to work harder and longer.
Just before a race, coaches often tell athletes to train very hard in brief spurts.
That extra stress increases the mitochondria mass even more, Dr. Brooks said, and is the reason for improved performance.
And the scientists?
They took much longer to figure it out.
"They said, 'You're anaerobic, you need more oxygen,' " Dr. Brooks said. "The scientists were stuck in 1920."
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Why it's hard for you to accept the fact that no known mechanism for the origin of DNA can be produced? Or that the information it contains is far more complicated than can be fathomed? And yet as mounting evidence for the complexity of life's most important molecule is uncovered you still want to believe it was created from a chance process. Even when those calculated odds are zero.
I don't care if you think ID is stupid. Its premises still question the fundamental validity of the emergence of evolution. Without the pre-existence of the most basic genetic molecules, evolution can't even begin. Simple as that. Complexity can't be dismissed just on the grounds that possibly, maybe, something or someone beyond our 'physical world' comprehension got it going. And that's exactly what you do every time you link it to the object of your deepest hatred; GOD.
Recall that evolutionary concepts were set in motion well before the discovery of DNA was even made. And that the fields of Molecular biology and Genetics reveal far more information than the evolutionary conclusions that are always drawn from them. The original article in this thread is a good example of that. Notice how it never pointed out the significance of discovering that the location of the 'non-coding' regions were just as important as the information contained in the segments of the coding ones... this in regards to multiple deleterious mutations which could supposedly be harbored and absorbed by said regions without causing problems. And according to that theory -- that eventually the segment containing these stored mutations would end up in the coded region and cause a phenotypical mutation that natural selection would 'judge' as beneficial or not. Well, if these regions are just as important to the functionality of the overall genome, none of these mutations would be able to be harbored by the non-coded regions as previously thought. But did the article even mention this... no.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-24-2006 at 11:05 PM.
Thanks for posting something I never wrote. But to your credit, Einstein did end up believing in the existence of GOD.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-24-2006 at 11:06 PM.
The origin of DNA? It's looking more and more like prions, which could easily be spontaneously produced in some mineral mixture given the enormous timespan of a few million years. Take note that life could not have evolved with DNA from the get-go, DNA as we know it is a very recent thing. The first life forms would have had a very basic system that is able to replicate (like a prion) and mutate, not DNA. The chances of a strand of DNA spontaneously forming is miniscule. But a simple deformed protein? Much more likely and much more simple.
Where's the proof? It will never be found. The first life was created so long ago that it has been long destroyed and recycled. The young earth was too violent for geological strata to form. Not to mention that the chances of any early life being preserved for this long is tiny.
It's often misquoted that genetic information can only be passed through DNA. RNA, non-coding RNA, and Prions are all capable of self-replication. Any copying process is bound to have flaws and will created mutations.
Note that prion to prion information flow has been observed in different generations of fungi, hence, it can be used as a more primitave "replicator" than DNA.
"your bigoted disdain for ID."
A faith-based religious extremist and Bible literalist who thinks God created humans filled with faked DNA 98% idential to ape DNA out of a pile of clay calls me "bigoted" for supporting science against evidence-free ID/creationsim/Genesis cosmology? GMAFB
You ing people flatter yourself with your BS "science" that finds a few anomalies, unresolved questions and that you can totally overthrow the 100+ years of hard and ever-mounting evidence supporting the theory of evolution (theory is NOT pejorative in my mouth) with its continually strenghtened powers of prediction and explanation.
Your basic position is: "look here, we got an anomaly, something we don't understand yet, a mystery over there, too, so now we totally ignore and refute all the evidence compiled by 1000s of scientists around the world over over many decades"
Your basic agenda is
1) God exists (no proof),
2) he created the universe in 6 days (which is cosmologically instanteous) (again no proof)
3) we'll pervert, subvert, and attack all of science to prove it's all bull , leaving God and his 6-days as the only possible explanation.
Builidng your own museums with man and dinosaurs co-existing is equivalent to a position that the Flintstone and "One Million Years BC" were do entaries.
I'll ignore your typical rant above. Particulary becuase you don't personally partake in any of the scientific investigation that is currently taking place. You talk all high and mighty like you understand it --- when you really don't... but that's your perogative too.
True Christians are living proof of GOD's existence. He dwells within us. You would never believe that attribute anyways.... so why bother. At this rate, by the time you 'believe'.... it will have been too late... that decision however is still in your hands today.
Our time is not GOD's time. I'm inclined to believe a literal 6 day creation. But I've always said if more data sways me to believe earth has been around for 4 billion years I'll accept it, admit my error, and move on. Somehow you always miss the fact that I'm not hinging my beliefs on a 'literal 6-day' creation model.
BTW the 'Big-Bang' sounds alot like Day number 1.
Read above. Your stance is far more inflexible than mine.
Yeah... you always seem to unearth stories of extreme behavior to try and explain the beliefs of the whole. You then use it to stereotype the entire 'Christian' community. Ultimately, that portrays you as a highly bitter individual who is unable to discern reality from extremes. Sounds like the problem is solely yours, since it appears to bother you so much.Builidng your own museums with man and dinosaurs co-existing is equivalent to a position that the Flintstone and "One Million Years BC" were do entaries.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-25-2006 at 10:36 AM.
You realize how big a prion is?
The smallest amount of self replicating 'genetic' material is still on the order 300 peptide bonded amino-acids. And their sequential order is highly essential to their function just as it is for DNA/RNA. Seeing how the smallest DNA/RNA sequence that could code for said protein / or be reversely coded from the protein prion is still over 900 bases long. That line of thinking is fools gold. Even the simplest of prions is still immensely complex. It's entropic order is greater or comparable to a 50-base, double-helical, DNA strand. Which as I've mentioned before on several occations has literally a 'zero' percent probability of having been created by a random process.
BTW primitive single cell organisms were found in small water pockets that were trapped within some salt formations in the great salt flats of Utah. These new species, though the oldest ever to be cultured, highly resembled modern day protozoans. They weren't any less complex than their successors. They weren't any more primitive. They weren't less advanced. So for a billion years in the protozoan-run world. We have essentially unchaged organisms that supposedly in the blink of an eye made the jump to multicellular organisms and subsequently on to fungi etc... The story gets more interesting by the day.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-25-2006 at 10:43 AM.
Prions don't need RNA/DNA to reproduce. Why would the lenth of DNA needed to create them be relevant when talking about how complicated they are?
Becuase they are amino-acid based proteins as well. And the ability to self-replicate is an inherent trait of sequencial complexity. In this case, the amino acids themselves are the 'code.' I likened them to DNA/RNA just to point out the fact that just because they are smaller doesn't make them any less complex. Not to mention the fact, that just like DNA/RNA --- every amino-acid making up the prion structure has 'left-handed' chirality. Statistically speaking that only worsens the premise that prions too, could be the causality of a chance process.
I'll read this later on... gotta get back to work.
Large amounts of warm water (figure the amount of water on the earth is a LOT of molecules) with even a small amount of organic compounds floating around, after a couple of billion years you will get some forms of simple protein. All it takes is one protein capable of replication, and BAM!! off to the races.
The entropic factor is irrelevant because a constant stream of energy hits the earth from our star. As long as any new adaptation's advantages outweigh the extra entropy created by increased complexity, that adaptation will succeed.
The advantage of cooperation among cells is a good example. Specialization allows for an adaptive advantage at all levels of complexity.
I was struck once by an article about a scientist who was studying neural networks.
He had a bunch of programable chips put together, each with 1,000 or so switches.
The simple task he would try to solve would be to distinguish between two tones. That's it.
The best that human programmers could come up with required something on the order of 800 or 900 or so of those switches.
So he set about to use evolution to solve the problem.
He randomly set up the chips and let them "solve" the problem. The first "generation" of chips yielded results of little better than what could be gotten by chance. He then took the best 20 or so of the designs, and made those the basis for the next generation. He would divide up his chips into 20 groups, each based roughly on the pattern of switches of those best 20.
He then repeated the process and in fewer than 100 generations had chips that performed near 100% accurately and only used 200 switches or so.
Some of these setups were extremely sensitive and when the environment changed, say it got slightly hotter or cooler, the chipsets would not function well.
He started with a random set of stuff, did a form of natural selection, and lo and behold, got something that is a very good analogy for biological evolution.
To say that we could only have come from something intelligently-designed or that our evolution MUST have been guided by some higher power, ignores simple, observable processes that we see all the time.
WTF is a "bigoted disdain for ID" anyway?
Is that when we make ID use a different water fountain?
No, it doesn't.
Researchers who have been studying "left-hand" and "right-hand" proteins have noticed that if you take an equally mixed puddle that contained 50% of lefties and 50% of righties, invariably the puddle would become either left- or right-handed.
All life on the earth consists of "lefty" protein, just as one would expect from bodies of water on our young earth. Eventually one or the other will get some miniscule upper hand that cascades until there is only one kind of protein or another, kind of like a coin that must land on either heads or tails.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-25-2006 at 03:24 PM. Reason: edited a typo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions