dorbie 0 #26 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe absolute best thing about this video though, the complete icing on the cake, is that they aren't even talking about evolution at all. All this talk about "New life, new life" is to do with abiogenesis! I'm not about to touch on the premise of that film, but can anyone tell me how life began on this planet? What's the consensus in the scientific community? There is no consensus (and probably never will be), but there are several viable theories. I think there might be, especially through simulation which is getting pretty sophisticated, it's not like there's raging controversey over the concept, just lack of certainty over the details. Once you have RNA the rest will happen over time and evolution clearly applies to RNA, but I think it applies to any self replicating chemicals and I think it's pretty obvious (to me)that it does, evolution is an innate emergent property of chemical self-replication, and replication with encoding doubly so, but more tennuously you could argue that evolution leads to finding an encoding ability through self-replication of simpler chemicals. You just need to stumble on one of these in the right chemical soup to sustain the reaction and you're off to the races (and it might not be a smooth process, it could stagnate or reach stabiity etc. before something comes along and shakes up the system, like a pool drying up or a flood mixing one soup with another, or a change in chemical composition). The real questions are over the details, especially over how it got bootstrapped. It's pretty well accepted that RNA without cells was an important precursor to life. I doubt there's any cellular microbiologist who believes in evolution out there who doesn't think that once you get to RNA in the right soup the rest is inevitable, even if they don't know the details. But I could be wrong about that. The film gets several key points spectacularly wrong though. 1) You can believe that God made the first cell and the environment in which it could replicate and still believe that evolution then took over. 2) If life ever started to emerge in a food jar, you'd never recognize it, it would at best be tiny amino acids and food is full of them anyway, how would you know. 3) Food jars do not contain the initial condition that led to life, in some senses it is far richer, crammed with organic mollecules, complex proteins, RNA and DNA. Life and the chemicals that create it abound in a food jar. In other senses they lack the sheer volume, the right chemical soup the potential for the right reactions the energetic events and aeons of time that may have been involved in the bootstrapping of the simplest organic chemistry. The video is about the most spectacularly ignorant and idiotic analysis you will ever watch on evolutionary biology. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #27 April 11, 2007 >it's not like there's raging controversey over the concept. . . Not among scientists, but there is a great deal of stink generated by people who see evolution as a threat to their belief systems. Happens in several other areas, not just evolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 April 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe absolute best thing about this video though, the complete icing on the cake, is that they aren't even talking about evolution at all. All this talk about "New life, new life" is to do with abiogenesis! I'm not about to touch on the premise of that film, but can anyone tell me how life began on this planet? What's the consensus in the scientific community? Probably has to do with lichens for a start. But science believes all life came from teh water I think. Basically, they leave room for a lot of modification to heories, unlike the kooks from the church. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 April 11, 2007 Quote Anyway, no one can tell you for sure how live DID begin, but we now know of several ways it COULD begin. Basically if you can't, "PROOVE" that life began a scientific way, then we must subscribe to the default theory: God / Jebus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #30 April 11, 2007 Quote>it's not like there's raging controversey over the concept. . . Not among scientists QuoteThe history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #31 April 11, 2007 >Probably has to do with lichens for a start. Lichens are pretty far along in the evolutionary scheme of things - they are symbiotes between fungus and algae (or cyanobacteria.) Gives them many of the benefits of both, which is why they can live almost anywhere. Are you thinking of archaea?: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #32 April 11, 2007 Quote The video is about the most spectacularly ignorant and idiotic analysis you will ever watch on evolutionary biology. I agreed with everything you said until this. I think they can do betterDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 April 11, 2007 Quote>it's not like there's raging controversey over the concept. . . Not among scientists, but there is a great deal of stink generated by people who see evolution as a threat to their belief systems. Happens in several other areas, not just evolution. Which is why Darwin had to slowly release his findings from the Galapogos; the church funded him. Who was the originla genetic scientists, Mendel I think. His theories on plant genetics were dead on, but the religious kooks at teh time dismissed his ideas. He receiveed postumous credit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 April 11, 2007 Quote>Probably has to do with lichens for a start. Lichens are pretty far along in the evolutionary scheme of things - they are symbiotes between fungus and algae (or cyanobacteria.) Gives them many of the benefits of both, which is why they can live almost anywhere. Are you thinking of archaea?: NO, you're right, I wasn't being fundamental enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #35 April 11, 2007 Quote Which is why Darwin had to slowly release his findings from the Galapogos; the church funded him. Darwin did everything slowly. He took something like twenty years to write a book about how good earthworms are for the soil. I don't think the church was looking to supress that one.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #36 April 11, 2007 Quote >it's not like there's raging controversey over the concept. . . Not among scientists, but there is a great deal of stink generated by people who see evolution as a threat to their belief systems. Happens in several other areas, not just evolution. I almost added that caveat but thought it unnecessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #37 April 11, 2007 Quote Quote The video is about the most spectacularly ignorant and idiotic analysis you will ever watch on evolutionary biology. I agreed with everything you said until this. I think they can do better Here's a contender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #38 April 11, 2007 QuoteThe history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. "It's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail." W. Dembski on the stand at Dover.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #39 April 11, 2007 Quote>they aren't even talking about evolution at all. All this talk about "New life, >new life" is to do with abiogenesis! (ssshh, they're on a roll) Good thing they didn't choose an old jar of honey, or they'd be faced with the perplexing question of "who put those sugar crystals in there? God?" Or imagine how funny if someone sneakily switched their jar with one of those trick containers with the spring loaded snakes. "Holy tarnation Melvira! Did you put them thar snakes in my peanut butter? No? Must have been God. I knew evolution was false."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #40 April 11, 2007 > (depending on what the estimate du jour was for our initial atmospheric mix.) So ahah...how did this initial atmospheric mix come into being? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #41 April 11, 2007 QuoteSo ahah...how did this initial atmospheric mix come into being? In the beginning the Flying Spagetti Monster passed gas.. and saw that it was good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #42 April 11, 2007 Quote> (depending on what the estimate du jour was for our initial atmospheric mix.) So ahah...how did this initial atmospheric mix come into being? That would require a long journey through galactic formation the birth of stars supernovae and additional rounds of star & planetary formation. It's complex but there are processes that explain it, they are well understood and we can see them in action in the Universe today if we simply look up. It is a very consistent very rigorous picture of how things are the way they are, the most amazing thing is we're able to determine so much so accurately through science. Aha! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #43 April 11, 2007 Nah - i don't get it. Therefore the only obvious truth is that it must be God. Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #44 April 11, 2007 >how did this initial atmospheric mix come into being? Clearly an early form of life opened a jar of peanut butter, and the escaping gases formed the protoatmosphere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 April 11, 2007 Quote Quote Which is why Darwin had to slowly release his findings from the Galapogos; the church funded him. Darwin did everything slowly. He took something like twenty years to write a book about how good earthworms are for the soil. I don't think the church was looking to supress that one. I have professors surmise thet he would tread slowly and carefully as the church funded and oversaw him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 April 11, 2007 Quote Nah - i don't get it. Therefore the only obvious truth is that it must be God. Default theory, as call it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #47 April 11, 2007 Quote>how did this initial atmospheric mix come into being? Clearly an early form of life opened a jar of peanut butter, and the escaping gases formed the protoatmosphere. So, you finally admit there was this early form of life. See, your starting to come around, and to think Amazon thinks its some kind of monster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #48 April 11, 2007 Quote >how did this initial atmospheric mix come into being? Clearly an early form of life opened a jar of peanut butter, and the escaping gases formed the protoatmosphere. OMG, it's a big cycle...... so forget about WWIII, when the next jar of PB is opened, that will signal teh end of this civilization as we know it. I'm never eating PB again Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #49 April 11, 2007 Quote>how did this initial atmospheric mix come into being? Clearly an early form of life opened a jar of peanut butter, and the escaping gases formed the protoatmosphere. That's the other mainstream theory. Peanutbutterists currently can't agree on which brand was involved though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 April 11, 2007 Quote Quote >how did this initial atmospheric mix come into being? Clearly an early form of life opened a jar of peanut butter, and the escaping gases formed the protoatmosphere. That's the other mainstream theory. Peanutbutterists currently can't agree on which brand was involved though. Peanutbutter theologians Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites