Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: cooperton

your making the same arguments as dr tour. this idiot makes the same arguments you do.

a reply to: AlienView


For All Life on Planet Earth Except for Homo Sapiens , No .

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Its you that is mistaken go figure

Will you ever admit that something cannot come from nothing? Or are you just going to avoid taking responsibility for the falsehoods that you say? It shows you are not objective when you don't admit when you're wrong. It also shows you don't care about truth, you just care about trying to look smart.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

your making the same arguments as dr tour. this idiot makes the same arguments you do.

So you can't defend yourself... its because you believe blindly. It isn't science. Unless you have evidence to support any of the baseless assertions you made on the prior page?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Its you that is mistaken go figure. You keep saying we descended from a microbe that's not correct. We evolved from one.

originally posted by: cooperton

Tell me how it would be possible to not ultimately descend from a microbe, yet to have evolved from one? The divergent ancestor that I assume you're going to refer to was a microbe (according to the theory). You guys harp on semantics because there is nothing else you can argue.

Yeah, that was such a weird red herring and semantics game by dragonridr. It's in the very word "ancestor(s)", making those lifeforms for whom LUCA is the ancestor(s), descendents of those ancestors. He/She even uses the word "ancestors" him/herself:

originally posted by: dragonridr

The earliest known lifeform is Archaea, these are prokaryotic microbes. All forms of life evolved from these primitive ancestors.

It's getting weirder and weirder here. One step away from the way people talk* on the philosophy&metaphysics and Aliens&UFO's forums. (*: in contradictions and weird usage of language to cover that up, to somehow make it work for them as if there are no contradictions in what they are expressing, and as if it all makes sense)

It reminds me of Paul's warning to Timothy to turn away “from the empty speeches” “and from the contradictions of” what is falsely called “knowledge.”* (1 Tim 6:20) (*: Latin: scientia, KJV: “science”, Greek: gnoʹsis; both the Latin and the Greek word mean “knowledge” in English, which is also still a synonym for “science” in English)

Sometimes it's labeled (presented) as "science", sometimes as "philosophy", often presented as "factual/true" (thus as knowledge, which is a familiarity with facts), but the reality is that it's just empty speech (talking specifically about these type of "weirder and weirder" comments that I was talking about, including dragonridr's spiel with "descended" vs "evolved" when using the term "ancestors" as if it's no issue for his red herring, and a comment I just read on the Aliens&UFO's forum where TheConstruKctionofLight was trying to convince chr0naut that truth is not absolute, appealing to a link to britannica.com rambling on with their empty speech and nonsensical philosophies about the words "truth" and "facts").

a reply to: whereislogic

The reason I made the distinctions you fail to understand is historical in nature.Prior to Darwin the accepted theory was known as formative drive. This theory from Johann Blumenbach said that forces acted on embryos causing them to become human or could indeed create new species. If the forces within the mother determined species you could have a situation where a new species is created. Darwin rejected this and in fact, was ridiculed for it.

Darwin said species were created through natural selection. Slight modifications to a species until eventually, they were no longer the same species. Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." This is why Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

In other words, if a new species just popped out of another one like hereditary traits. At the time they understood new breeds could be domesticated they have seen it in dogs for example. You can take to dogs breed them and get traits from both parents. You could get a dog that doesn't look like either parent. This is where those special forces came in until Darwin pointed out the process. He said you cannot get a different species from another.

What you can do is gain traits from ancestors which can be passed down as more and more of these traits occur eventually you get a new species.

So to say we descended from microbes is incorrect you have to say we evolved from them.

Stop with the semantics and let's talk about science

originally posted by: dragonridr
Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." This is why Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Biochemically speaking, this is one of the many reasons why evolution is not a possible theory. Proteins have massive necessary modifications if you were to change one protein into another. Take for example titin, it is coded for by 100,000 nucleotides, so how could slow successive mutations create that many changes, while the intermediate stages are useless? It is silly, especially since titin needs other proteins necessary in order to make a functioning muscle. This doesn't include the necessity of organizing factors which express and place these proteins in working synchrony which must turn on and off at their proper time.

This proves it could not have come to be by sequential modifications. Science disproves evolution.

a reply to: whereislogic

Yeah they just don't know what they believe. But they believe undoubtedly that evolution must be true, despite not knowing how it happened. They claim to be scientific, yet can never debate scientific facets without resorting to insult to bail on the discussion when they are backed against a wall. There's no feasible mechanism for how genes could make the quantum leap from one protein code to another - not to mention you lose the data from the old gene in such a process. It's about as likely as microsoft computer code being created by a monkey.

The title for this OP is hilarious of course evolution has a meaning it’s had so many meanings and fear not it will have many more new meanings each and every time the others are proven false like all the rest of the other meanings...
Evolution is a misnomer...
Evolution is still evolving it’s true meaning...
Stand by for the new meaning...
Know that it won’t be right either...

a reply to: cooperton

I told you to stay away from dr tour he makes that same lame argument. Try watching the video I know it's long but he made 14 videos they had to go through. It's not a car and no it's not assembled and parts can be used in multiple ways by life forms.

Since you mentioned muscles the protein involved with them is myosin it evolved probably in unicellular organisms, long before the first animals lived. Surprisingly research showed that muscle myosin can be used for multiple things not just muscles. In sponges, that all lack muscles, the muscle myosin appears to play a role in regulating the water flow through the sponge. So a protein we thought only occurred in muscles have another purpose.

Jellyfish occupy a special phylogenetic position to understand the evolution of muscles. They are cnidarians, an animal group that originated more than 600 million years ago, and possess striated muscles just like you. Due to the striking similarities between striated muscles of vertebrates and jellyfish, it was so assumed both striated muscle types share a common origin. In fact, jellyfish striated muscles also express the ancient "muscle myosin," but they lack several essential components that are characteristic for the structure and function of striated muscles of "higher animals.So guess what that is an early form of your muscles.

Now watch the video I posted I know it's long but Dr tour put out a lot of misinformation so it made for a long video. The problem is today we have too many ways life could have formed to say which one is correct. Origin of life researchers have made great strides in the past 20 years and we have found multiple paths life could have taken. Watch the video it will update you on current research being done by the scientists and they explain it to you.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why is it that the forum at large is constantly being asked to provide examples of transitional fossils and one animal turning into a completely different animal, but no one has to provide examples of divine miracles and supernatural communications taking place in modern society? Even if (that's a huge IF) you can make evolution look like a train wreck of a theory, that doesn't negate how much of a train wreck intelligent design has turned out to be. Destroying one presidential candidate in a debate doesn't mean the other guy is suddenly much more ethically and professionally qualified. It's still a douchebag competing with a dog turd sandwich.

But in this case, it's a compost heap and a dog turd sandwich. At least the compost heap isn't pretending to be a sandwich.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

It's not a car and no it's not assembled and parts can be used in multiple ways by life forms.

Yeah its even more complex than a car. It's self-repairing, self-replicating (with a mate), conscious, and so on. So a car, which definitely requires intelligent input, is even less complex than biological organisms. Biological organisms have a logical source.

Since you mentioned muscles the protein involved with them is myosin it evolved probably in unicellular organisms

Source? What's the evidence for this?

Jellyfish occupy a special phylogenetic position to understand the evolution of muscles. They are cnidarians, an animal group that originated more than 600 million years ago

Source? You really think there is concrete evidence that shows jellyfish evolved through genetic mutations specifically 600million years ago?

You keep ignoring the necessity of information required for these protein sequences. The one myosin gene in humans is about 21,000 base pairs long source... for this to be randomly mutated is beyond possibility. Your faith that these complex coding sequences can be randomly generated is extremely illogical. Even the baseline functioning myosin is still very complex

Why do you always begin at complex structures in isolation?

I'm no protein expert, by any means, but I'm pretty sure they are organised into similar families (structurally) and they show an evolution in themselves. Am I wrong?

A protein, just like an organism, would develop over time. Human beings did not appear on Earth at the same time as single-celled organisms, did they? So complex proteins would not have been present then either, and would have developed along with the organism using them.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Why do you always begin at complex structures in isolation?

I'm no protein expert, by any means, but I'm pretty sure they are organised into similar families (structurally) and they show an evolution in themselves. Am I wrong?

A protein, just like an organism, would develop over time. Human beings did not appear on Earth at the same time as single-celled organisms, did they? So complex proteins would not have been present then either, and would have developed along with the organism using them.

Even in the most basic prokaryote or archaea, there are complex fully functioning proteins. This is why there is a massive disconnect for evolutionary theory. It would fit evolutionary theory of prokaryotes were existing with half-formed proteins, but that's not the case at all.

But proteins were around before bacteria and archaea. We're talking about a period very early in time, with little to no direct evidence remaining, so proving it either way will be almost impossible. All we have is the structure of families of proteins, which suggest with a very high probability that proteins evolved and gained complexity over time.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Why do you always begin at complex structures in isolation?

I'm no protein expert, by any means, but I'm pretty sure they are organised into similar families (structurally) and they show an evolution in themselves. Am I wrong?

A protein, just like an organism, would develop over time. Human beings did not appear on Earth at the same time as single-celled organisms, did they? So complex proteins would not have been present then either, and would have developed along with the organism using them.

Even in the most basic prokaryote or archaea, there are complex fully functioning proteins. This is why there is a massive disconnect for evolutionary theory. It would fit evolutionary theory of prokaryotes were existing with half-formed proteins, but that's not the case at all.

this goes back to that biology stuff you don't understand. I was going to take the time to explain this to you once again and do the work for you. But I've changed my mind time you educate yourself watch the video I posted it's in there. When you get done we can discuss.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
But proteins were around before bacteria and archaea. We're talking about a period very early in time, with little to no direct evidence remaining, so proving it either way will be almost impossible.

Exactly. So its faith. The reason though why my empirical mind tells me that protein chains could not have been swimming around back then, is because they degrade spontaneously in water. Therefore the primordial soup theory is out the window, because nucleotide (RNA/DNA) chains also degrade spontaneously in water. I wonder where phantom is, she got real upset when she realized this. I think she still refuses to believe it even though it is a basic thermodynamic law.

So there's no soup of proteins swimming around organizing in a meticulous fashion. Even if one were to miraculously synthesize by random chance against all possibilities allowed by thermodynamic law, it would still need a multitude of other necessary proteins to generate the first living replicable organism.

It's just not a realistic theory... This is exciting for us as scientists, it opens up new realms of possibility, and the exciting world of quantum biology is going to hurdle us into the next stage of understanding our place in the universe.

originally posted by: dragonridr

this goes back to that biology stuff you don't understand.

lol explain to me how proteins can self-assemble in water. I would love to hear your attempt at explaining how it is possible. Also Do you still believe something can come from nothing?

It's possible the noun 'water' is too loose in this situation. You're probably correct if the liquid was H2O, but I sincerely doubt it was this pure at this stage of Earth's history. Chemical composition and temperature would have played a role, but this is outside my knowledge.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
It's possible the noun 'water' is too loose in this situation. You're probably correct if the liquid was H2O, but I sincerely doubt it was this pure at this stage of Earth's history. Chemical composition and temperature would have played a role, but this is outside my knowledge.

The thing is, if the medium wasn't mostly water, then it wouldn't have been habitable for lifeforms. Yet water itself degrades proteins spontaneously. Do you deny intelligence entirely? Or is it a mixture of something like intelligent evolution?

a reply to: cooperton

So you want to play chicken-or-the-egg questions i see: Which came first — proteins or nucleic acids like DNA and RNA?

It starts with amino acids stabilizing and forming long chains or polymers, Proteins are produced as a long chain of building blocks called amino acids and need to fold into a specific shape to function correctly. Now most of those elongated polymers merely continue on their way. But sometimes they end up folding, and some even have a hydrophobic patch of their own, just like the original catalyst. When this happens, the folded molecules with landing pads not only continue to form long polymers in greater and greater numbers but can also end up constituting what’s called an autocatalytic set, in which foldamers either directly or indirectly catalyze the formation of copies of themselves. This alters the prebiotic soup making it have huge amounts of proteins. What started as a spark becomes a roaring fire in other words if it only happens 1 out of 10000 eventually the process starts happening very quickly as numbers increase.

But this is a red herring anyway because without water you couldn't get this reaction because it relies on certain acids being hydrophobic. Oh and cooper your fool proteins do just fine in water as long as it's not too acidic your blood is not all that different from seawater that's why you can get a saline solution if you lost too much blood to maintain blood pressure. And since your biological knowledge proves to be limited proteins travel through our bloodstream all the time.

Look you have no clue about current research I know where you're getting your information from you say the same things. But he's wrong try doing some research on your own and stay off those creationist websites.

originally posted by: dragonridr

It starts with amino acids stabilizing and forming long chains or polymers

Big step you're breezing over here. As said before, amino acid chains do not spontaneously polymerize in water, they break down.

Proteins are produced as a long chain of building blocks called amino acids and need to fold into a specific shape to function correctly.

Yes another step that needs to be catalyzed by protein chaperones that facilitate the proper folding. If they don't fold correctly it's useless. The problem with this is that chaperones are also proteins, so how, if there's no protein chains yet, do you get a protein chain to chaperone the folding process?

Now most of those elongated polymers merely continue on their way.But sometimes they end up folding, and some even have a hydrophobic patch of their own, just like the original catalyst. When this happens, the folded molecules with landing pads not only continue to form long polymers in greater and greater numbers

Getting even one semi-long polypeptide chain is not possible in water though... its not like there is a soup of these peptide chains immersed in water because amino acids do not spontaneously polymerize in water

but can also end up constituting what’s called an autocatalytic set, in which foldamers either directly or indirectly catalyze the formation of copies of themselves.

Foldamers are synthetic.

This alters the prebiotic soup making it have huge amounts of proteins.

No because even if such a miracle occurred, they would very quickly be hydrolyzed into their monomer form

Oh and cooper your fool proteins do just fine in water as long as it's not too acidic your blood is not all that different from seawater that's why you can get a saline solution if you lost too much blood to maintain blood pressure. And since your biological knowledge proves to be limited proteins travel through our bloodstream all the time.

Amino acid polymerization is unfavorable in water. If it weren't you would get random protein amalgamation in your body all the time which would be horrible. Proteins hydrolyze relatively slowly, but polypeptide chains do not spontaneously form in an aqueous solution.

You being condescending and wrong is kind of enjoyable.

a reply to: cooperton

Any evidence you cant get amino acids polymerization in water? Try looking it up you might be sirprised their are papers. So lets do this find me papers that say it cant happen. Tired of doing all the work for you. prove it.